Organisation Name
US Chamber of Commerce
InfluenceMap Query
Renewable Energy Legislation
Data Source
Legislative Consultations
 
 

Score for this Data / Query Cell

-2.0

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.

 

Opposing renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Have stated they do not support specific renewable energy targets proposed by the EPA, and are clearly advocating against their introduction (Evidence from joint statement submitted during the EPA's consultation on 'Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, December 2014, p 203)

Extract from Source:

Renewable energy has great promise in Montana and neighboring states, but the ability to construct new wind energy parks is limited by the constraints of the transmission system to send the energy to more populous areas where demand is concentrated, and by the ability of the rest of the generating fleet and the grid to reliably integrate weather-dependent renewable energy which may or may not be generated as needed. These are not intractable problems, but it is clear that the EPA rule has not thoroughly considered them—certainly not on the state-to-state basis that is necessary for the BSER to be adequately demonstrated. As a preliminary matter, the EPA rule is vague and even self-contradicting on the question of which state should get credit for renewables. Should it be the state where the renewable generator is located, or another state where consumers of the energy might reside?

Created: 03/06/2015 Last edited: 02/01/2018

 

Opposing renewable energy legislation

InfluenceMap Comment:

Opposing specific clean energy policy associated with clean power plan (US Chamber, multi-association letter to the EPA on Clean Energy Incentive Program, November 2016)

Extract from Source:

As EPA is aware, the Supreme Court has fully stayed the implementation of the Clean Power Plan. To the extent the courts ultimately uphold the legality of any aspect of the Clean Power Plan, the Associations have a strong interest in any proposals to implement the Clean Power Plan, including the proposed CEIP .[...] EPA continues to arbitrarily pick winners and losers among certain renewable energy and energy efficiency programs and ignores technologies and fuels that effectively reduce GHG emissions and are similarly situated to realize EPA’s regulatory goals. The Associations accordingly have several concerns with the proposed CEIP. First, EPA lacks the authority to proceed to promulgate the CEIP at this time in light of the Supreme Court’s stay of the Clean Power Plan, and EPA should cease any further work on the CEIP unless and until a potential scenario arises where the litigation process is complete and the stay is lifted. [...] Second, to the extent EPA moves forward with the CEIP, it must provide additional flexibility to allow market forces and state policies to determine the types of energy technologies that are used to comply with the Clean Power Plan’s GHG emission reduction goals. Third, EPA must refrain from imposing unduly restrictive criteria to exclude energy technologies that have the potential to reduce GHG emissions in accordance with EPA’s goals under the Clean Power Plan.[...] EPA must create a level playing field by making the CEIP available to all technologies and energy sources that can reduce net GHG emissions from the electricity sector, including, but not limited to, other forms of renewable energy identified in the Clean Power Plan, energy efficiency measures, and other forms of electricity generation that can help achieve compliance with state emission reduction goals, such as natural gas, nuclear, CHP, biomass, and waste heat power.

Created: 29/11/2016 Last edited: 04/01/2017