```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 512 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 512

    Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Environmental 
  Protection Agency and the proposed rules and guidelines relating to 
              carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2014

Mr. Vitter (for himself, Mr. Cornyn, Mr. Thune, Mr. Wicker, Mr. Inhofe, 
  Mr. Blunt, Mr. Crapo, Mrs. Fischer, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Boozman, Mr. 
Coats, Mr. Enzi, Mr. Roberts, Mr. Chambliss, Mr. Risch, Mr. McConnell, 
 Mr. Cochran, Mr. Moran, Mr. Johanns, Mr. Barrasso, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. 
 Rubio, Mr. Hoeven, Mr. Coburn, Mr. Shelby, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Toomey, Mr. 
Isakson, Mr. Lee, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Kirk) submitted the 
     following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                      Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
    Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the Environmental 
  Protection Agency and the proposed rules and guidelines relating to 
              carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Whereas the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this preamble as the 
        ``EPA'') proposed rules entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines 
        for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units'' (79 Fed. 
        Reg. 34830 (June 18, 2014)), and ``Carbon Pollution Standards for 
        Modified and Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating 
        Units'' (79 Fed. Reg. 34960 (June 18, 2014)), in furtherance of the 
        President's Climate Action Plan of June 2013;
Whereas the proposed rules would result in a Federal takeover of the electricity 
        system of the United States leading to significant increases in 
        electricity rates and additional energy costs for consumers and 
        elimination of access to abundant, affordable power, putting the 
        manufacturing of the United States at a competitive disadvantage, 
        threatening the diversity and reliability of the electricity supply, and 
        undermining energy security;
Whereas increased energy costs will, as always, fall most heavily on the 
        elderly, the poor, and individuals on fixed incomes;
Whereas increased energy costs also result in job losses and damage families, 
        businesses, and local institutions such as hospitals and schools;
Whereas in the haste of the Administration to drive coal and eventually natural 
        gas from the energy generation portfolio, the Administration has gone 
        beyond the plain reading of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), 
        disregarding whether the EPA has the legal authority to propose and 
        finalize rules and guidelines that include elements from the cap-and-
        trade program rejected by the United States Senate in June 2008;
Whereas including emissions sources beyond the power plant fence as opposed to 
        only emissions sources inside the power plant fence creates a cap-and-
        trade program;
Whereas the President noted in the wake of the initial failure of the proposed 
        cap-and-trade program, ``There are many ways to skin a cat'', 
        demonstrating that the Administration seems determined to accomplish 
        administratively what fails to be achieved through the legislative 
        process;
Whereas at a time when manufacturers are shifting production from overseas to 
        the United States and investing billions of dollars in the process, an 
        Administration with a poor management record decided to embark on a plan 
        that will result in energy rationing, pitting power plants against 
        refineries, chemical plants, and paper mills for the ability to operate 
        under the emissions requirements of the EPA;
Whereas after adopting similar carbon constraints, European countries 
        experienced skyrocketing energy costs, economic decline, and a lower 
        standard of living;
Whereas, on July 17, 2014, Australia repealed a carbon tax because Australia 
        found that the carbon tax eliminated jobs, increased the cost of living 
        for families, and did not benefit the environment;
Whereas the proposed rules mandate renewable energy use and initiate demand 
        destruction to shrink energy production and usage, which will result in 
        reduced economic opportunity at the State level, forcing States to pick 
        winners and losers and choose between economic growth and energy 
        affordability;
Whereas history demonstrates that at the end of the rulemaking process, the EPA 
        will use its authority to constrain State preferences on program design, 
        potentially even dictating policies that restrict when families of the 
        United States can do laundry or run the air-conditioning;
Whereas impositions by the EPA almost guarantee that costs will be maximized and 
        passed along to ratepayers, the size and scope of the Federal Government 
        will expand, and the role of the States in the system of cooperative 
        federalism will continue to diminish;
Whereas the EPA failed to provide a complete assessment of the economic costs 
        imposed by the proposed rules or the benefits that may result;
Whereas benefits from the proposed rules (as measured by reductions in global 
        average temperature, reductions in the rate of sea level rise, increases 
        in sea ice, or any other measurement related to climate change) will be 
        essentially zero;
Whereas, in 2009, former EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson testified that ``U.S. 
        action alone would not impact world CO<INF>2</INF> levels.'';
Whereas on June 18, 2014, former EPA Administrator William Reilly testified that 
        ``Absent action by China, Brazil, India and other fast-growing 
        economies, what we do alone will not suffice.'';
Whereas China remains the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world with 
        increasing emissions rates;
Whereas China continues to pursue aggressive economic growth, and estimates 
        indicate that China will pass the United States as the largest economy 
        in the world by 2016; and
Whereas while the Junior Senator from Massachusetts, now Secretary of State John 
        Kerry, said ``[W]e need to have an agreement that does not leave 
        enormous components of the world's contributors and future contributors 
        of this problem out of the solution'': Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--
            (1) the proposed rule of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency entitled ``Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for 
        Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units'' (79 
        Fed. Reg. 34830 (June 18, 2014)), should be withdrawn; and
            (2) the proposed rule of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency entitled ``Carbon Pollution Standards for Modified and 
        Reconstructed Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units'' 
        (79 Fed. Reg. 34960 (June 18, 2014)), should be withdrawn.
                                 <all>
```