III 

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 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 512 IS 

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 AdministraVerDate Mar 15 2010 02:44 Jul 24, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR512.IS SR512

jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 512 IS 

tion 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, 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•SRES 512 IS 

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 

CO2 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 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that— 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•SRES 512 IS 

1 (1) the proposed rule of the Environmental 

2 Protection Agency entitled ‘‘Carbon Pollution Emis3 sion Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

4 Electric Generating Units’’ (79 Fed. Reg. 34830 

5 (June 18, 2014)), should be withdrawn; and 

6 (2) the proposed rule of the Environmental 

7 Protection Agency entitled ‘‘Carbon Pollution Stand8 ards for Modified and Reconstructed Stationary 

9 Sources: Electric Generating Units’’ (79 Fed. Reg. 

10 34960 (June 18, 2014)), should be withdrawn. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS