Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Thoughts as to the impact of omitting provisions of HR-7173 Section 330 from the
Senate version?
Will this present challenges during the reconciliation conference after passage in both
chambers?
Here's what _____ had to say (at 3:24) on the all supporter call on Wednesday
regarding your question on the distinction as well as what the updated Energy
Innovation Act Q&A says:
Importantly, with both bills, the Clean Air Act will remain the law of the land. The Clean
Air Act is the foundational EPA authority over greenhouse gases and was confirmed by
the Supreme Court’s Massachusetts vs. EPA ruling in 2006. With the House version of
the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, EPA regulations on covered
greenhouse gas emissions would be inactive as long as we are meeting the emission
targets in the bill, but all other aspects of the Clean Air Act would remain. This mainly
affects the Clean Power Plan, which never went into effect, is being challenged in the
courts, and would be superseded by this law.
EPA rules that don’t directly regulate covered greenhouse gases will remain untouched
and still in effect: pollutants like NOx, sulfur, ozone, particulates, and mercury; CAFE
mileage standards for cars and trucks; GHG authority over non-road vehicles and
aircraft; and the methane abatement program that applies to leaked and vented
methane from oil and gas operations. Additionally, states would retain authority to pass
GHG regulations within their borders.
There is overwhelming evidence from recent economic literature that a policy like this
will effectively reduce GHG emissions far more than any existing proposed regulation,
including the Clean Power Plan. This is supported by the REMI report and by a review
of 11 different revenue-neutral carbon pricing plans in a February 2018 issue of Climate
Change Economics.
These carefully written provisions in the policy allow the carbon fee to simply, affordably,
and effectively reduce greenhouse gas from fossil fuels while preserving regulatory
authority.
I am confused by that response ... Section 330 of HR-7173 is completely missing from
the Senate version. Was its omission an oversight, or was it intentional?
What would the impact be if the Senate version is amended to include Section 330 vis-
a-vis if the House version is amended to exclude Section 330 during debate in the
respective chambers or during reconciliation conference?
One way or the other, subsections (e) and (f) seem to be significant, and these
provisions could present a serious challenge (my underscore bold italics emphasis
added):
Thanks Doug, you've highlighted this specific regulatory adjustment section in the
House text in a prior discussion in this thread.
Your question deals with a key section of legislative text in the House version that isn't
in the Senate version. Bottom line, we'll see what happens given that both bills will be
re-introduced in the 116th Congress and CCL will find out if there are differences and
specifically what they are with these new bills.
In the mean time, here's specifically what _____ said on the all supporter call regarding
your question about how CCL views the differences between this legislation:
"For those that did read the House bill HR 7173 you may remember that section eight
pertains to regulations and in this [Senate] bill that part is different. They took out about
three pages and replaced it with about three paragraphs and what those three
paragraphs say is that after six years the administrator of the EPA is instructed to review
regulations imposed on covered fuels and covered emissions for the greenhouse gas
effects and only for their greenhouse gas effects. So what that means is that there is no
regulatory pause in this [Senate] bill, there is just an instruction for the administrator of
the EPA to review existing regulations six year from now and if they're reviewing them
CCL feels great about this we feel great about the [House bill], we're going to continue
to be absolutely enthusiastic about both of them. This one is closer to what we always
wanted but we still feel very comfortable with HR 7173 and we are going full speed
ahead supporting both.”
Glad you provided the link to the Zoom call that I missed and failed to find.
I saw the announcement for the Zoom at about 9:05pm (after it ended) here on the Q&A
Forum ... Friday morning, I discussed this with my CCL Upper Valley Chapter leadership
and after reviewing the email _________ received and searching my inbox I determined
that I am not on the mailing list, so having the link, I just now SUBSCRIBED and
hopefully will receive advance notification of future zoom meetings.
It is especially helpful to hear specifically what Danny said on the all supporter call and
then to re-reading Section 8 in that light. I have now read carefully the language the
Senate substituted for House's Section 330, but even reading the transcript of Danny's
explanation, I am still in a quandary what it means insofar as making course
corrections under the Senate Section 8 versus House Section 8 subsection 330.
It seems to me one is as vague as the other, begging the question, "What if CO2
reduction targets are not met during 2022-2028 or 2029-2030, as the case may be?"
As important as it is to assure success, I will again suggest what I proffered in this
thread.
Doug
P.S. For sake of comparison for those who have not actually read the two versions of
Section 8, the Senate title and pertinent version follow the House title below (the
pertinent House content subsections (e) and (f) are quoted in my most recent post
above) for the purpose of clearly showing the significant difference and the failure to
provide a safety net that I believe is warranted to protect against failure to achieve
required CO2 emissions reduction results suggested in this thread:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not earlier than the date that is 6 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (referred to in this section as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall evaluate the
effectiveness of the fees imposed by sections 9902, 9904, and 9908 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 at reducing emissions in accordance with
the emissions reduction schedule set forth in section 9903 of such Code.
###