Mr. Chair, the underlying bill, H.R. 3826, is a radical rewrite of the Clean Air Act. It effectively repeals the EPA's existing authority to address carbon pollution from coal-powered plants. It says that EPA cannot set a standard for new plants unless the standard is already being met by power plants using technologies that can achieve that standard. Well, why would any power plant want to spend the money to use technology to achieve a standard that their competitors do not have to achieve? So it is a chicken and egg problem. You cannot require them to do what they are not already doing. Well, this amendment goes a step further and it says, for natural gas-fired power plants, they shouldn't have to do anything that they are not already doing either. They would block EPA from requiring natural gas-fired power plants to install pollution controls. The problem is, EPA's current proposal for new natural gas plants doesn't require any pollution control technology. EPA is going to set a standard, and then let that standard be achieved however the industry would accomplish it. So this amendment would preemptively block EPA from ever considering rules that might further reduce carbon pollution from any future power plants, whether they be coal or natural gas. I think it makes no sense. It is a disaster for the climate. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
On the recordMarch 5, 2014
Share & report
More from Henry Waxman
Nov 18, 2014
I appreciate that our subcommittee is going to get a better understanding of this issue, particularly from both Federal and state regulators, who worked so hard to get this issue under control late this past summer.
Nov 19, 2014
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of science-based policies. Throughout my career, I have always welcomed expert scientific advice and relied upon facts and scientific evidence to…
Nov 20, 2014
Mr. Chairman, the reason I qualified it is because I see no reason to oppose the amendment. It is not objectionable. But it doesn't actually fix the bill's four problems. Subsection 3(b) of the bill gives new sources amnesty from…





