Organisation Name
US Chamber of Commerce
InfluenceMap Query
GHG Emission Standards
Data Source
Main Web Site
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-1.89

InfluenceMap has researched and collated the following pieces of evidence associated with the data source and query indicated above. Extraordinary information is indicated by a coloured flag in the upper right corner. Evidence items in order of data inputted with exceptional items first.

 

Not supporting GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Evidence suggests organization does not support GHG emissions standards (Main website, link to letter from Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, March 2015)

Extract from Source:

EPA's massive regulation will have no effect on the problem it claims to solve The EPA's stated rationale for attempting to shut down America's coal-fired power plants is to combat global climate change. Yet, this costly effort is largely symbolic unless and until other major nations impose similar requirements on their own economies. Even then, the EPA admits that the "climate" benefits of the CPP cannot be quantified and has refused to estimate the impact it would have on global temperature or sea levels.

Created: 26/05/2015 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Taking legal action against GHG emissions standards (US Chamber Litigation Center website, 2015)

Extract from Source:

In the coalition brief, the Chamber asked the District of Columbia Circuit Court to evaluate the EPA's authority, in a proposed rule to substantially regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power generators. The proposed rule’s annual compliance costs will reach at least $7.3 billion by 2030. The brief argues that CAA §111(d)(1), precludes EPA from directing States to “establish standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant … which is…emitted from a source category … regulated under section 7412 [i.e., CAA §112].” Because the Mercury Rule regulates power plants under §112, EPA may not adopt the proposed rule.The brief points out that that owners and operators of power plants are already heavily governed by multiple EPA regulations imposing costs of billions of dollars per year on the industry. The proposed rule's annual compliance costs will reach at least $7.3 billion by 2030, dramatically increase electricity’s costs for the industry, while mandating obligations making electric service less reliable.

Created: 05/06/2015 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing Clean Power Plan (US Chamber website, December 2015)

Extract from Source:

Stephen Eule, vice president for climate and technology at the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, who is in Paris monitoring the talks, offers an inconvenient fact that counters Administrator McCarthy’s cheerleading.Countries like China and India will continue to electrify their countries’ economies with coal so they can continue to lift their citizens out of poverty (see the chart below). Nothing agreed to in Paris will change that, and no one should expect otherwise. And thus, Eule concludes, the CPP will “go down as one of the most expensive, futile gestures in U.S. history.”

Created: 31/03/2017 Last edited: 31/03/2017

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Advocating for policy makers to oppose specific GHG emissions standards. Opposing EPA Clean Power Plan. (Extract from main website article, 'A Bunch of States Tell EPA: Your Carbon Regulations are Nuts', January 2015)

Extract from Source:

Here are some of the common complaints and concerns highlighted in the report [all emphasis mine]: 1. The Carbon Regulation's Legality [...] 2. Its Harmful Effects on Electricity Prices, Jobs, and the Economy [...] 3. It Threatens Power Grid Reliability [...] 4. It Isn't Technological Achievability [...] 5. The Regulations are Based on Mistakes and Errors [...] 6. There are Unrealistic Timelines to Implement the Regulations [...] 7. There are Unrealistic Timelines to Meet Interim Targets [...] 8. It Gives Little Credit for Previous Carbon Reductions [...] 9. It Doesn't Treat Nuclear Power Adequately [...] 10. There is Little Consideration for Stranded Costs [...] 11. Standards for Existing Power Plants are Tougher than for New Power Plants [...] 12. It Doesn't Properly Estimate Power Plant Generation Capacity

Created: 01/06/2015 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing GHG emission regulations

InfluenceMap Comment:

Leading industry challenge to Clean Power Plan (US Chamber Litigation Center website, 2016)

Extract from Source:

CHAMBER-LED COALITION OF 16 TRADE ASSOCIATIONS. The Chamber is the lead petitioner in a coalition of 16 national trade associations challenging the final power plant greenhouse gas regulations. These trade associations represent nearly every sector of the economy. The Chamber has been joined in its lawsuit by the National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Foundry Society, American Forest and Paper Association, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Wood Council, Brick Industry Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Lignite Energy Council, National Lime Association, National Oilseed Processors Association and Portland Cement Association. The caption is Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. EPA, No. 15-1382. The lead attorney for the Chamber-led coalition is Peter Keisler (Sidley Austin), who successfully argued the last two greenhouse gas cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, UARG, Chamber, et al. v. EPA and AEP v. Connecticut, et al.

Created: 19/12/2016 Last edited: 19/12/2016

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting the repeal of numerous US GHG emission standards regulation , including the Clean Power Plan and methane standards (Policy Priorities, 2018)

Extract from Source:

Advance e orts to replace the Clean Power Plan with a durable and achievable approach to addressing carbon emissions through collaboration between the federal government, states, and all stakeholders. • Strive to revise the New Source Performance Standards for methane emissions from the energy industry to properly re ect voluntary measures that have already provided signi cant reductions. 

Created: 04/11/2018 Last edited: 04/11/2018

 

Opposing GHG emissions standards

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing specific GHG emissions standards. Official position on website does not support the Obama administration's attempts to regulate GHG emissions. (Website, June 2015)

Extract from Source:

The Chamber supports commonsense policies that balance environmental improvement with economic growth. We: [...] Oppose EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gases under the existing Clean Air Act.

Created: 01/06/2015 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing GHG emission regulations

InfluenceMap Comment:

Supporting stay on US Clean Power Plan (US Chamber website, March 2016)

Extract from Source:

On the evening of February 9th, 2016, a collective sigh of relief was heard in state capitals across the country.  In response to requests from 27 states, the U.S. Chamber, and numerous other business and labor organizations, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order that blocked EPA from implementing the Clean Power Plan (CPP) [...] The legal effect of such a court order – a “stay” – is to press pause, effectively resetting the world to the day before a rule was finalized so that states and regulated parties are not forced to sink extraordinary resources into complying with a rule that might not even be lawful.  Or at least, that’s what it is supposed to be, [...] In response to the Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has engaged in an escalating pattern of defiant rhetoric, culminating in her outrageous statement earlier this week that “[l]ife is continuing [in] the exact same direction it was before the stay, [...] Her most recent claims follow on the heels of the agency’s equally outrageous suggestion that the stay won’t push back the CPP’s compliance deadlines.Whether the CPP deadlines are extended by the length of the stay – or “tolled,” to use the legalese – matters tremendously, because it has the potential to put states in a serious pickle. [...] Notwithstanding EPA’s blustery claims to the contrary, the law is crisp and clear that a court stay of a regulation delays (or tolls)  all of the deadlines included in a rule for at least as long as the amount of time that a rule is stayedThat’s why the U.S. Supreme Court’s stay of the CPP is important—it keeps EPA from relying on its “Catch Me If You Can” regulatory strategy yet again.  States deserve to have the complete picture about the real legal effect of the Supreme Court’s stay before they fall for EPA’s misinformation campaign.

Created: 31/03/2017 Last edited: 31/03/2017