2019: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2020 Minibus Appropriations Bill, Which Placed Restrictions On The EPA's Ability To Curb Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In December 2019, Schweikert voted against the FY 2020 minibus spending bill, which represented 8 of the 12 appropriations bills. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure prohibits EPA from issuing a rule requiring the reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from manure management systems, bars the EPA from imposing reporting requirements regarding greenhouse gas emissions, and prohibits EPA from using funds to regulate lead content in ammunition or fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act." The vote was a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. The House agreed to the motion by a vote of 297-120. The Senate later passed the bill and the President signed the bill into law. [House Vote 689, 12/17/19; Congressional Quarterly, 12/17/19; Congressional Actions, H.R.1865]
2014: Schweikert Voted To Block Trade Agreements That Set Limits On Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Being Negotiated Or Agreed To. In May 2014, Schweikert voted for an amendment that, according to Congressional Quarterly, would "bar[] the use of funds to negotiate or enter into a trade agreement that establishes a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. The funding limitation would not, however, apply with regard to the administration of a tax or tariff." The House agreed to the amendment to the FY 2015 Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill -- which includes funding for the Office of the United States Trade Representative -- by a vote of 226 to 179. The House subsequently passed the underlying bill, but the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 267, 5/30/14; Congressional Quarterly, 6/4/14; House Report 113-448, 5/15/14; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 771; Congressional Actions, H.R. 4660]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations To Defund The Clean Power Plan. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds made available under the bill to implement two October 2015 Environmental Protection Agency rules regarding regulation of carbon pollution and greenhouse gas emissions." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 192-240. [House Vote 381, 6/20/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.437; Congressional Actions, H.R.3055]
2017: Schweikert Voted For The FY 2018 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution Which In Part Called For Stopping The Clean Power Plan. In October 2017, Schweikert voted for a budget resolution that would in part, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide for $2.9 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2018. It would balance the budget by fiscal 2023 by reducing spending by $10.1 trillion over 10 years. It would cap total discretionary spending at $1.06 trillion for fiscal 2018 and would assume no separate Overseas Contingency Operations funding for fiscal 2018 or subsequent years and would incorporate funding related to war or terror into the base defense account. It would assume repeal of the 2010 health care overhaul and would convert Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into a single block grant program. It would require that off budget programs, such as Social Security, the U.S. Postal Service, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, be included in the budget." The underlying legislation was an FY 2018 House GOP budget resolution. The House rejected the RSC budget by a vote of 139 to 281. [House Vote 555, 10/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 10/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 455; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 71]
2017: Schweikert Voted Against Subjecting Rules That Add The Equivalent Of 25,000 Metric Tons Or More Of Carbon emissions To Be Considered A 'Major Rule' Under The REINS Act, Thus Requiring Congressional Approval. In January 2017, Schweikert voted against an amendment to the REINS Act which would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "require[d] agencies to include an accounting of greenhouse gas emission impacts associated with a rule in the report that would be required by the bill to be submitted to Congress. The report also would [have] need[ed] to include an analysis of the rule's impacts on low-income and rural communities. If a rule would [have] increase[d] carbon equivalent emissions by 25,000 metric tons annually or possibly increase the risk of certain diseases to low-income or rural communities, then the rule would be considered a 'major rule.'" The underlying legislation was the REINS Act. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 193 to 230. [House Vote 13, 1/5/17; Congressional Quarterly, 1/5/17; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 4; Congressional Actions, H.R. 26]
2016: Schweikert Voted Against The Clean Power Plan. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[d] the bill's provisions that would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from limiting greenhouse gas emissions from new and existing power plants." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environmental appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 182 to 244. The House later passed the underlying legislation, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 431, 7/12/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/12/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1305; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Nullify The EPA's Carbon Emissions Rule For New And Modified Power Plants. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for nullifying the EPA's carbon emissions rule for new and modified power plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, the joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval would have "disapprove[d] of and nullify the Environmental Protection Agency carbon emissions rule for new and modified power plants." The House approved the joint resolution by a vote of 235 to 188. The Senate had already passed the resolution, which was then vetoed by the president. The veto was not overridden. [House Vote 651, 12/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/15; Statement of Administration Policy, 11/17/15; Congressional Actions, S. J. Res. 23]
If Enacted, A Congressional Disapproval Resolution Blocks The Targeted Rule, Or Any Substantially Similar Rule, From Taking Effect. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA; PL 104-121) established a process through which Congress can overturn regulations issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. If both chambers submit disapproval resolutions within 60 session days (exclusive of recess periods) after Congress receives the rule, both chambers may consider the disapproval resolution under an expedited procedure. [...] If a disapproval resolution is enacted, it prevents the rule from taking effect and the agency is prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without subsequent statutory authorization. If a rule is disapproved after going into effect, it is treated as though it never took effect. If the president vetoes a disapproval resolution, the rule may not take effect for 30 session days thereafter, unless either the House or Senate votes to sustain the veto." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
Carbon Emissions Rule Establishes Standards For New, Modified And Reconstructed Power Plants. According to the Federal Register, "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing new source performance standards (NSPS) under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 111(b) that, for the first time, will establish standards for emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2) for newly constructed, modified, and reconstructed affected fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs). This action establishes separate standards of performance for fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and fossil fuel-fired stationary combustion turbines. This action also addresses related permitting and reporting issues. In a separate action, under CAA section 111(d), the EPA is issuing final emission guidelines for states to use in developing plans to limit CO 2 emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs." [Federal Register, 10/23/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: Resolution Would Allow For The Continued Construction Or Outdated And High Polluting Power Plants. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "Most importantly, the resolution could enable continued build-out of outdated, high-polluting, and long-lived power generation infrastructure and impede efforts to reduce carbon pollution from new and modified power plants -- when the need to act, and to act quickly, to mitigate climate change impacts on American communities has never been more clear." [Statement of Administration Policy, 11/17/15]
Rule Was Part Of The Administration's Plan To Cut Emissions. According to the National Journal, "The administration pledged to the U.N. that it would cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, through measures such as the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards, and clean-energy incentives. The U.N. talks are dependent on countries each submitting---and following through---on their own emissions plans." [National Journal, 10/26/15]
Vote Was Meant To Undermine International Climate Talks. According to the Washington Post, "The overall message is that as Obama and his negotiators head to Paris for COP-21, there is considerable resistance at home to the key policy by which the U.S. itself promises to reduce emissions. But then, the world already knew that. It has been a major theme throughout many years of international climate negotiations. 'I think they're trying to create confusion and uncertainty before the international climate agreement is finalized, and it's not going to work,' said Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii of the votes. 'They have had success in the past in muddying the waters, but we are in a different place now in terms of the international participation, in terms of domestic political support for clean energy, and in terms of having a real clean energy program in America.'" [Washington Post, 11/17/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: President Obama Would Veto Resolution. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "Because S.J.Res. 23 threatens the health and economic welfare of future generations by blocking important standards to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon pollution, if the President were presented with S.J.Res. 23, he would veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 11/17/15]
US Chamber Of Commerce And The American Coalition For Clean Coal Electricity Was In Favor Of The Joint Resolution. According to the Washington Post, "The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauded the planned votes, however, as did the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity." [Washington Post, 11/17/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Nullify The EPA's Rule On Existing Power Plants Known As The Clean Power Plan. In December 2015, Schweikert voted for a joint resolution of disapproval for the EPA's carbon emission rules for existing power plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, the joint resolution would have "disapprove[d] of and nullif[ied] the Environmental Protection Agency carbon emissions rule for existing power plants." The vote was on the joint resolution. The House approved the joint resolution by a vote of 242 to 180. The Senate already passed the resolution, which the president vetoed and was not overridden. [House Vote 650, 12/1/15; Congressional Quarterly, 11/17/15; Statement of Administration Policy, 11/17/15; Congressional Actions, S. J. Res.24]
If Enacted, A Congressional Disapproval Resolution Blocks The Targeted Rule, Or Any Substantially Similar Rule, From Taking Effect. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The Congressional Review Act of 1996 (CRA; PL 104-121) established a process through which Congress can overturn regulations issued by federal agencies by enacting a joint resolution of disapproval. If both chambers submit disapproval resolutions within 60 session days (exclusive of recess periods) after Congress receives the rule, both chambers may consider the disapproval resolution under an expedited procedure. [...] If a disapproval resolution is enacted, it prevents the rule from taking effect and the agency is prohibited from issuing a substantially similar rule without subsequent statutory authorization. If a rule is disapproved after going into effect, it is treated as though it never took effect. If the president vetoes a disapproval resolution, the rule may not take effect for 30 session days thereafter, unless either the House or Senate votes to sustain the veto." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/13/15]
The Clean Power Plan For Existing Plants Would Require Emissions To Be Cut By 32 Percent From 2005 Levels By 2030. According to the New York Times, "The most aggressive of the regulations requires the nation's existing power plants to cut emissions 32 percent from 2005 levels by 2030, an increase from the 30 percent target proposed in the draft regulation." [New York Times, 8/2/15]
Clean Power Plan Part Of The Administration's Plan To Cut Emissions. According to the National Journal, "The administration pledged to the U.N. that it would cut emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025, through measures such as the Clean Power Plan, fuel economy standards, and clean-energy incentives. The U.N. talks are dependent on countries each submitting---and following through---on their own emissions plans." [National Journal, 10/26/15]
"EPA Expects That Under The Clean Power Plan, By 2030, Carbon Pollution From Power Plants Will Be Reduced By 32 Percent From 2005 Levels" And Would Mean Fewer Premature Deaths And Fewer Childhood Asthma Attacks." According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "EPA expects that under the Clean Power Plan, by 2030, carbon pollution from power plants will be reduced by 32 percent from 2005 levels. By nullifying the Clean Power Plan, S.J.Res. 24 seeks to block progress towards cleaner energy, eliminating public health and other benefits of up to $54 billion per year by 2030, including thousands fewer premature deaths from air pollution and tens of thousands of fewer childhood asthma attacks each year. Most importantly, the resolution would impede efforts to reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants -- the largest source of carbon pollution in the country -- when the need to act, and to act quickly, to mitigate climate change impacts on American communities has never been more clear." [Statement of Administration Policy, 11/17/15]
Statement Of Administration Policy: President Obama Would Veto The Resolution. According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "Because S.J.Res. 24 threatens the health and economic welfare of future generations by blocking important standards to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector that take a flexible, common sense approach to addressing carbon pollution, if the President were presented with S.J.Res. 24, he would veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 11/17/15]
Vote Was Meant To Undermine International Climate Talks. According to the National Journal, "But a vote does give opponents an on-the-record statement of disapproval and a signal that at least one branch of the government isn't on board with the climate agenda. And that's exactly what McConnell and other opponents of the Clean Power Plan want to tell the rest of the world. McConnell has been working for months to try to communicate to states and other countries that the Clean Power Plan isn't on solid ground in a bid to undermine international climate talks." [National Journal, 10/26/15]
Fossil Fuel Groups Were Opposed To The Rule. According to US News, "Fossil fuel groups and some utilities, however, have lambasted the measure. While it does tailor each state's emissions target based on its current mix of power sources, it is expected to fall heavily on the coal power sector, both the nation's largest source of electricity (39 percent) and the power sector's greatest source of carbon dioxide emissions (77 percent), according to the EPA and the Energy Information Administration." [US News, 8/3/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A Bill That Allowed Governors To Opt Their States Out Of The Clean Power Plan If They Believed The Regulations Would Raise Energy Costs. In June 2015, Schweikert voted for a bill that would postpone the dates by when states and existing fossil-fuel power plants must comply with current or future EPA rules to reduce carbon emissions until all judicial challenges are completed, and it allows state governors to opt out of developing an emissions reduction plan or complying with a federal plan for existing plants if he or she determines that the requirement would have an adverse effect on electricity ratepayers. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of a bill that would postpone the dates by when states and existing fossil-fuel power plants must comply with current or future EPA rules to reduce carbon emissions until all judicial challenges are completed, and it allows state governors to opt out of developing an emissions reduction plan or complying with a federal plan for existing plants if he or she determines that the requirement would have an adverse effect on electricity ratepayers." The vote was on the bill. The House of Representatives passed the bill by a vote of 247 to 180. The bill was received in the Senate, but took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 384, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/15; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2042]
2015: At Time Of Debate, Administration Had Not Yet Issued Final Rule Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards For New And Existing Power Plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In June 2013, President Obama directed EPA to develop greenhouse gas emission standards for new and existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Final rules for new power plants were issued on Jan. 8, 2014, and EPA proposed a new rule to regulate existing plants on June 2, 2014. It is currently engaged in stakeholder outreach, and a final rule is expected this summer." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/15]
Statement of Administration Policy: "The Bill Would Give Governors Unprecedented And Broad Discretion To Avoid Compliance With The CAA, Thereby Delaying The Delivery Of Important Public Health Benefits." According to a Statement of Administration Policy, "The Administration strongly opposes H.R. 2042, which would undermine the public health protections of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and threaten to slow or stop U.S. progress in cutting dangerous carbon pollution from power plants. [...] The bill would give governors unprecedented and broad discretion to avoid compliance with the CAA, thereby delaying the delivery of important public health benefits. The bill's effects would be felt hardest by those most at risk from the impacts of air pollution and climate change, such as the elderly, the infirm, children, native and tribal groups, and low-income populations. [...] Because H.R. 2042 threatens the health and economic welfare of current and future generations by blocking important standards to reduce carbon pollution from the power sector, if the President were presented with H.R. 2042, he would veto the bill." [Statement of Administration Policy, 6/23/15]
Physicians For Social Responsibility: "This Bill Strikes At The Heart Of The Federal Clean Air Act By Letting Each State Simply Walk Away From National Clean Air Requirements, Giving Polluters Free Rein To Continue To Dump Unlimited Amounts Of Carbon Pollution Into Our Air." According to a letter by the Physicians for Social Responsibility, "On behalf of our millions of members, the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose Representative Whitfield's Ratepayer Protection Act. This dangerous legislation undermines climate action by allowing states simply to opt out' of the EPA's Clean Power Plan (CPP), which sets the first national standards limiting carbon pollution from power plants. It also seeks to delay implementation of the CPP indefinitely until every polluter's lawsuit has been litigated. [...] This bill strikes at the heart of the federal Clean Air Act by letting each state simply walk away from national clean air requirements, giving polluters free rein to continue to dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air. The legislation sets a dangerous precedent by allowing any state to decide that meeting national clean air standards is merely optional. It would destroy the national guarantee that makes the Clean Air Act work: the assurance that EPA will directly regulate the big polluters if a state cannot, or will not do so." [Physicians for Social Responsibility, 4/28/15]
Supporters Of Measure Say Is Needed To Preserve Jobs In The Energy Sector. According to Congressional Quarterly, 'Supporters of the bill, including most Republicans and the energy industry, argue that it is needed to preserve jobs and ensure that Americans have affordable electricity. They note that because coal is both plentiful and affordable, it is the largest source of electricity in the nation and a significant driver of jobs. Energy produced from coal is highly reliable, and having coal as part of America's energy mix provides homeowners and small businesses with reasonable electric bills, and manufacturers with low energy costs that help such U.S. businesses remain globally competitive." [Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/15]
Koch Brothers Backed Organization, American For Prosperity, Urged Representatives To Vote Yes And Included The Vote In Their Annual Scorecard. [Americans for Prosperity, 114th Congress Scorecard]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Required Governors To Certify That The Ratepayer Increases Associated With A Federal Or State Carbon Emissions Plan Was Greater Than The Costs Associated With Responding To Extreme Weather Events Due To Climate Change. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment requiring Governors to certify that the ratepayer increase associated with a federal or state carbon emissions plan would be greater than the costs associated with extreme weather events due to climate change. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "require[d] a governor's certification that any ratepayer increase associated with implementing a state or federal plan would be greater than any cost associated with responding to extreme weather events associated with human-caused climate change, including sea level rise, flooding, frequent and intense storms, frequent and intense wildfires or drought." The underlying measure was the Ratepayer Protection Act which would "allow for judicial review of any final rule addressing carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units before requiring compliance with such rule, and to allow States to protect households and businesses from significant adverse effects on electricity ratepayers or reliability." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 182 to 243. [House Vote 382, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, H.R. 2042; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 527; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2042]
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL): Underlying Legislation "Would Effectively Give Governors The Power To Opt Out Of The Federal Requirements Of The EPA's Proposed Clean Power Plan If They Decide That Complying With The Plan Would Have An Adverse Effect On Either Rates Or Reliability." In a floor speech, Rep. Rush said, "Mr. Chairman, the legislation before us, which I prefer to call the 'Just Say No' bill, would effectively give Governors the power to opt out of the Federal requirements of the EPA's proposed clean power plan if they decide that complying with the plan would have an adverse effect on either rates or reliability. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, the language allowing a Governor to opt out is ambiguous and does not take into account other costs that States are already paying due to the impacts of climate change. So, Mr. Chairman, in order to address this issue, I am offering a straightforward amendment that simply states that a Governor must certify that, within his or her State, any ratepayer increases associated with implementing a State or Federal plan would be greater than any costs associated with responding to extreme weather conditions associated with human caused climate change." [Congressional Record, 6/24/15]
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY): The Amendment Would Require Governors To Do Something They Could Not Do Because Defining The Costs Of Climate Change Was Impossible To Calculate. In a floor speech, Rep. Whitfield said, "His amendment would basically say that State Governors must certify that the cost to the ratepayers under EPA's 111(d) rule would exceed the costs associated with responding to extreme weather events. I point out once again that in The Economist magazine just this May, a few weeks ago, they were quoting scientists who were saying it is impossible to say categorically that climate change has caused any individual storm, flood, drought, heat wave, tornado, hurricane, or any other adverse weather effect. So that correlation has simply not been established scientifically. This amendment would require State Governors to make a certification on something that they cannot do, even the EPA itself will not and cannot do, which is to show any direct benefit on climate events from their rule." [Congressional Record, 6/24/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against Requiring A Governor's Certification Under The Bill That Any Ratepayer Increase Associated With Implementing A State Or Federal Plan Must Include A Certification That Electricity Generating Units Are Sources Of Carbon Pollution That Contribute. In June 2015, Schweikert voted against requiring a governor's certification under the bill that any ratepayer increase associated with implementing a state or federal plan must include a certification that electricity generating units are sources of carbon pollution that contribute. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would have, "require[d] a governor's certification under the bill that any ratepayer increase associated with implementing a state or federal plan must include a certification that electricity generating units [were] sources of carbon pollution that contribute to climate change and that Congress should address human-induced climate change through increased use of clean energy, energy efficiency and reductions in carbon pollution." The underlying measure was the Ratepayer Protection Act of 2015 which would "postpone the dates by when states and existing fossil-fuel power plants must comply with current or future EPA rules to reduce carbon emissions until all judicial challenges are completed, and it allows state governors to opt out of developing an emissions reduction plan or complying with a federal plan for existing plants if he or she determines that the requirement would have an adverse effect on electricity ratepayers." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 181 to 245. [House Vote 381, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/15; Congressional Quarterly, 6/24/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 526; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2042]
Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ): The Amendment Required Governors To Certify That That The Plan Would Promote National Security, The Economy, And Public Health By Addressing Human Induced Climate Change. In a floor speech, Rep. Pallone said, "Mr. Chairman, my amendment includes language identical to an amendment recently offered by Senator BENNET and approved during the Senate budget process. It is simple enough. In order to opt out, a Governor must certify that the State or Federal plan would ''promote national security, economic growth and public health by addressing human induced climate change through the increased use of clean energy, energy efficiency and reductions in carbon pollution.''" [Congressional Record, 6/24/15]
Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY): The Amendment Implied The Federal Government Was Not Taking Action On Climate Change And Impeded The Ability For Governors' To Opt-Out Of Federal Carbon Regulations. In a floor speech, Rep. Whitfield said, "Just reading the amendment, there doesn't seem to be that much wrong with it, and really there is not that much wrong with it; but I would point out that this amendment suggests that the Federal Government is not taking action about climate change. [...] Like I said, we are simply trying to give States more time, giving them the option to opt out if they need to. We want the courts to render a decision that this is legal before they have to start spending the resources and the money to respond to it. For that reason, I would respectfully disagree with this amendment and ask that our Members vote against it." [Congressional Record, 6/24/15]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against The FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Withholding EPA Funding So As To Block The Clean Power Plan. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against the FY 2016 budget resolution which called for withholding EPA funding so as to block the Clean Power Plan. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution called for "withholding funding from EPA to block it from implementing the administration's Clean Power Program, under which power plants would be required to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as to block proposed EPA regulations to tighten ozone standards and establish a stream buffer rule that could affect domestic coal production." The vote was on the budget resolution. The House passed the resolution 228 to 199. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 142, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Withholding EPA Funding So As To Block The Clean Power Plan. In March 2015, Schweikert voted against a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for withholding EPA funding so as to block the Clean Power Plan. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution called for "withholding funding from EPA to block it from implementing the administration's Clean Power Program, under which power plants would be required to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as to block proposed EPA regulations to tighten ozone standards and establish a stream buffer rule that could affect domestic coal production." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House passed the amendment 219 to 208 and later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 141, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 86; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted For A FY 2016 Budget Resolution Which Called For Withholding EPA Funding So As To Block The Clean Power Plan. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for a FY 2016 Budget Resolution which called for withholding EPA funding so as to block the Clean Power Plan. According to Congressional Quarterly, the resolution called for "withholding funding from EPA to block it from implementing the administration's Clean Power Program, under which power plants would be required to further reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as to block proposed EPA regulations to tighten ozone standards and establish a stream buffer rule that could affect domestic coal production." The vote was on the adopting the substitute amendment. The House rejected the amendment 105 to 319. The House later adopted a substitute amendment identical to this except for a change in defense spending and then later passed the budget resolution. The budget resolution died in the Senate, but a similar concurrent resolution did pass both Houses. [House Vote 140, 3/25/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/23/15; Congressional Quarterly, 3/30/15; Congressional Actions, S. Con. Res. 11; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 85; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2015: Schweikert Voted To Stop The EPA's Regulations On New And Existing Power Plans As Part Of The FY 2016 Republican Study Committee Budget Resolution. In March 2015, Schweikert voted for preventing the EPA from implementing its rule on new and existing power plants. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The RSC budget would block the Obama administration's war on coal. Despite the fact the American people rejected the president's cap-and-trade proposal, the EPA is moving ahead with job-killing climate change regulations on new and existing power plants." The underlying budget resolution would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "provide[d] for $2.804 trillion in new budget authority in fiscal 2016, not including off-budget accounts. The substitute would call for reducing spending by $7.1 trillion over 10 years compared to the Congressional Budget Office baseline." The vote was on the substitute amendment to a Budget Resolution. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 132 to 294. [House Vote 138, 3/25/15; Republican Study Committee, FY 2016 Budget; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/15; Congress.gov, H. Amdt. 83; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 27]
2014: Schweikert Voted To All-But-Block Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulation Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Coal- And Other Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants. In January 2014, Schweikert voted for a bill that, according to Congressional Quarterly, "would limit EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled power plants under the 1963 air pollution control law. It would nullify EPA's recently issued rules for new electricity-generating power plants and restrict EPA to setting national standards for new plants that have already been adopted by at least six nationally disbursed plants. It also would block EPA regulation of existing power plants unless Congress later allows EPA to do so. As amended, it would prohibit performance standards to be based on a foreign-developed technology unless it has been successfully used at a U.S. power plant." The House passed the bill by a vote of 229 to 183; however, the bill died in the Senate. [House Vote 106, 3/6/14; Congressional Quarterly, 3/6/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3826]
December 2009: Acting In Response To A 2007 Supreme Court Decision, EPA Formally Found That Greenhouse Gases Were A Threat To The Public Health And Welfare, Requiring That EPA Issue Rules To Control Them. According to Congressional Quarterly, "EPA regulation of greenhouse gases began shortly after the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in the case Massachusetts v. EPA. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that greenhouse gases were air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act. As a result, the court required the EPA to make an 'endangerment finding' regarding the pollutants' effect on public health and welfare, or determine whether the science used to make such a finding is too uncertain to make a clear determination. EPA issued an endangerment finding in April 2009 [sic: December 2009], in which it stated that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of six key, well-mixed greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. EPA identified the six 'well mixed' greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexaflouride [sic]. EPA's finding marked the first time that stationary-source greenhouse gas emissions would be covered by a 'prevention of significant deterioration' program, and EPA began a formal rule-making to address those gases." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14; EPA Endangerment Finding Final Rule, Federal Register, 12/15/09]
Natural Gas- And Coal-Fired Power Plants Account For 40 Percent Of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Fixed Sources. According to Congressional Quarterly, "According to the EPA guidance for the new regulations, permitting will focus on the largest industrial emitters, including electric-generating facilities, large boilers, pulp and paper production plants, cement facilities, iron and steel plants, refineries and nitric acid plants. The finding stated that nearly 70% of stationary greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from these sources --- including 40% that come from gas- and coal-fired electrical power plants." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
January 2014: EPA Issued Regulations Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions For Any New Coal- And Fossil-Fuel-Burning Power Plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In June 2013, President Obama directed EPA to develop greenhouse gas emission standards for new and existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Acting under that directive, the EPA in September 2013 proposed rules for new power plants. The proposal would limit new large, natural-gas-fired turbines to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, while new small, natural-gas-fired turbines would be limited to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. New coal-fired units also would have to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour and would have the option to meet a somewhat tighter limit if they choose to average emissions over multiple years, which would give those units more operational flexibility. To achieve EPA's proposed limits for coal-fired power plants, those plants would likely have to install carbon capture and sequestration technology. These final rules for new power plants were issued on Jan. 8, 2014." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
EPA Has Said It Will Propose Regulations For Existing Coal- And Fossil-Fuel-Burning Power Plants In June 2014. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The agency is expected to propose regulations for existing plants in June 2014 and is currently engaged in stakeholder outreach." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
EPA Expects Its Two Power Plant Regulations To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions By 3 To 5 Percent; Industry Estimates It Will Cost $15 To $75 Billion To Comply. According to Congressional Quarterly, "EPA estimates that the regulations on new and existing electrical power plants will reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions by 3% to 5%. Industry cost estimates for compliance with the regulations range from $15 billion to $75 billion." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Would Require That, After Its Enactment, EPA Could Only Impose Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards On New Power Plants That Industry Had Already Voluntarily Implemented At Least Six Plants Nationwide. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the measure, EPA in the future could issue greenhouse gas emission standards for new power plants --- but only if those standards have been in use by the industry for at least six, nationally disbursed power plants for a full year on a commercial basis." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill's Supporters Argued It Would Protect Coal Power Industry -- And The Jobs And Affordable Electricity It Provides -- From "Unreasonable" EPA Rules That They Say Would Effectively Block New Plant Construction. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, including most Republicans and the energy industry, argue that it is needed to preserve jobs and ensure that Americans have affordable electricity. They note that because coal is both plentiful and affordable, it is the largest source of electricity in the nation and a significant driver of jobs. Energy produced from coal is highly reliable, and having coal as part of America's energy mix provides homeowners and small businesses with reasonable electric bills and manufacturers with low energy costs that help them remain globally competitive. EPA's unreasonable rules, they say, would prevent new coal-fired power plants from ever being built. [...] The bill is needed to prevent EPA's unreasonable proposals from going into effect, they say; if allowed to be implemented, the rules will surely be the nail in the coffin for any future coal-fired power plants since the carbon capture and storage technology that would be required is far too costly." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Supporters Argued EPA Regulations Over The Past Five Years Have Already Contributed To The Closing Or Scheduled Closing Of Several Existing Coal Power Plants, Leading To Significant Job Losses. According to Congressional Quarterly, "EPA's proposed greenhouse gas standards for new coal-fired power plants threaten the viability and reliability of our entire system, they contend, saying that EPA's harm is no longer speculative, as a number of existing coal-fired power plants have already shut down or are scheduled to do so in the near future. Their owners have attributed the shutdowns, at least in part, to EPA regulations enacted over the past five years, which, they say, also led to massive job losses." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Opponents Argued It Effectively Denies The Science Behind Climate Change And Ignores The Threat To Americans From It. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, including most Democrats and environmental groups, contend that it would effectively repeal EPA's existing legal authority to address carbon pollution for power plants under the Clean Air Act, protecting energy producers at the expense of the general public. They say EPA in 2009 determined that greenhouse gas pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare because it would lead to long lasting changes in the world's climate, which could have a wide range of negative effects on human health and the environment. By blocking EPA rules, the bill effectively denies the science of climate change and ignores its risks, they argue." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Opponents Argued It Would Effectively Give The Coal Industry A Permanent License To Pollute, By Blocking EPA From Requiring That Coal Power Plants Reduce Their Carbon Emissions Or Helping Industry Move To New, Cleaner Power Plant Designs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure also would prevent EPA from protecting the American people from carbon pollution by helping transition the power industry to cleaner generation of coal-powered electricity, they say. The bill would effectively block EPA from ever requiring current coal-fired power plants to control carbon pollution to any significant degree, absent adoption of Congress enacting a new law. And for new coal-fired power plants, it reverses decades of Clean Air Act precedent and practice to bar EPA from requiring pollution controls unless such controls have already been broadly adopted by the industry without any government financial assistance in any form. This, they say, would let coal-fired power plants pollute indefinitely and with impunity." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
2013: Schweikert Voted To Prevent The EPA From Promulgating Any Regulations Relating to Greenhouse Gases. In March 2013, Schweikert voted to support preventing the EPA from promulgating any regulations relating to greenhouse gases, as part of the Republican Study Committee's proposed budget resolution covering fiscal years 2013 to 2023. According to the Republican Study Committee, "The budget also prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change." The vote was on an amendment to the House budget resolution replacing the entire budget with the RSC's proposed budget; the amendment failed by a vote of 104 to 132 with 171 Democrats voting present. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Repeating a strategy from last year, 171 Democrats voted "present" to push Republicans to vote against the RSC plan to make sure it did not have enough support to replace the Ryan plan." [House Vote 86, 3/21/13; Republican Study Committee, 3/18/13; Congressional Quarterly, 3/25/13; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 35; Congressional Actions, H. Con. Res. 25]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Prohibit The Implementation Of A Federal Acquisition Regulation Council Rule Regarding Greenhouse Gas Emission Disclosures. In June 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 164 that would prohibit the use of funds under the bill to finalize, implement or enforce the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council's 2022 proposed rule regarding disclosures of greenhouse gas emissions and climate-related financial risk." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 Defense Appropriations. The House adopted the amendment by a vote of 211 to 199. [House Vote 328, 6/28/24; Congressional Quarterly, 6/28/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.1080; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8774]
2015: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment That Would Prohibit Federal Funding For Programs That Violated An Executive Order That Promoted Sustainability And Reduction Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In July 2015, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would prohibit federal funding to violate an executive order that established a sustainability strategy for the federal government and made restrictions of greenhouse gas emissions a priority. According to Congressional Quarterly, the amendment would, "prohibit funds from being used in contravention of an executive order establishing an integrated strategy towards sustainability in the federal government and making reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a priority." The underlying bill made FY 2016 appropriations for the Department of the Interior, Environment, and other related agencies. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment 189 to 237. [House Vote 406, 7/8/15; Congressional Quarterly, 7/8/15; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 588; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2822]
2009: The Obama Administration Issued An Executive Order That Required Federal Agencies To Set Greenhouse Gas Emission Goals, Increase Energy Efficiency, Reduce Waste And Focus On Environmentally Sustainable Policies And Products. According to a press release from the White House, "Demonstrating a commitment to lead by example, President Obama signed an Executive Order [...] today that sets sustainability goals for Federal agencies and focuses on making improvements in their environmental, energy and economic performance. The Executive Order requires Federal agencies to set a 2020 greenhouse gas emissions reduction target within 90 days; increase energy efficiency; reduce fleet petroleum consumption; conserve water; reduce waste; support sustainable communities; and leverage Federal purchasing power to promote environmentally-responsible products and technologies." [White House, 10/5/09]
2013: The Obama Administration Issued An Executive Order That Established A Community Advisory "Task Force On Climate Preparedness And Resilience." According to a press release from the White House, "Today, President Obama established a Task Force on Climate Preparedness and Resilience to advise the Administration on how the Federal Government can respond to the needs of communities nationwide that are dealing with the impacts of climate change. The Task Force members include state, local and tribal leaders from across the country who will use their first-hand experiences in building climate preparedness and resilience in their communities to inform their recommendations to the Administration. The President signed an Executive Order that directs Federal agencies to take a series of steps to make it easier for American communities to strengthen their resilience to extreme weather and prepare for other impacts of climate change." [White House, 11/1/13]
Rep. Don Beyer (D- VA): Amendment Prevented Funding For Federal Agency Activities That Did Not Comply With The 2009 Executive Order On Federal Sustainability. According to a floor speech by Rep. Beyer, "Federal agency actions, including those of the agencies named in this bill, have major impacts on our contributions and reactions to global warning. It is imperative, then, that these agencies maintain mindfulness of those impacts and that they seek to avoid actions that add significant amounts of carbon pollution to the atmosphere or actions that put people and property in the vulnerable position with respect to climate change. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am offering an amendment to ensure that no funds are spent on activities that are not in compliance with the President's 2009 executive order on greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency and the 2013 executive order on climate change adaptation. These orders require agencies to take global warming into account when making decisions and will save taxpayer dollars while making our communities safer and cleaner. Our agencies need to be climate smart, because making our Federal investments and actions climate smart reduces our fiscal exposure to the impacts of climate change." [Congressional Record, 7/7/15]
Rep. Ken Calvert (R- CA): Congress Should Determine Funding. According to a floor speech by Rep. Calvert, "Mr. Chair, earlier, we debated whether or not to continue a bipartisan reporting requirement in the bill on climate change expenditures. My colleague on the other side of the aisle wanted to remove the requirements, which would have reduced transparency. Now he wants to ensure that funds are being expended on climate and efficiency executive orders issued by the President. So I am left to wonder whether my colleagues would prefer to know if funds are spent on these programs or not. Regardless, this amendment is simply unnecessary. The President did not consult Congress on these executive orders, so, if anything, we should defund the programs until Congress can have an appropriate policy debate. I see no reason to include this language, and I urge my colleagues to vote 'no.'" [Congressional Record, 7/7/15]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations To Curb Restrictions On Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds made available by the bill for the Environmental Protection Agency to prepare or promulgate any regulation or guidance referencing analysis contained in certain documents published by the White House council on environmental quality and by interagency working groups on the social cost of carbon and greenhouse gases." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 189-243. [House Vote 386, 6/20/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.443; Congressional Actions, H.R.3055]
2019: Schweikert Voted Against An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations To Curb Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards. In June 2019, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of fund provided by the bill to finalize certain findings in a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule regarding national emission standards for air pollutants from coal- and oil-fired steam-generating units." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 128-304. [House Vote 395, 6/20/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.454; Congressional Actions, H.R.3055]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Eliminate Funding For The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In July 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "amendment no. 18 that would prohibit the use of funds under the bill for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund." The vote was on the amendment. The underlying legislation was the FY 2025 Interior-Environment appropriations. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 208 to 211. [House Vote 384, 7/23/24; Congressional Quarterly, 7/23/24; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.1138; Congressional Actions, H.R. 8998]
2014: Schweikert Voted Against Stating That Greenhouse Gases Contribute To Climate Change. In March 2014, Schweikert voted against , according to Congressional Quarterly, an "amendment that would add language stating that Congress accepts the EPA's findings that greenhouse gas pollution contributes to long-lasting climate changes that can impact human health and the environment." The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 190 to 221. [House Vote 103, 3/6/14; Congressional Quarterly, 7/10/13; Congressional Actions, H.R. 3826]
2016: Schweikert Voted For Funding The EPA's Ability To Develop Rules Relating To Methane Emissions. In July 2016, Schweikert voted against an amendment that would have, according to Congressional Quarterly, "remove[ed] the bill's provisions prohibiting the use of funds by the Environmental Protection Agency to develop rules or guidelines relating to methane emissions." The underlying legislation was an FY 2017 interior and environment appropriations bill. The vote was on the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 187 to 240. The House later passed the bill, but the Senate took no substantive action on the legislation. [House Vote 434, 7/13/16; Congressional Quarterly, 7/13/16; Congressional Actions, H. Amdt. 1309; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5538]
May 2016: The EPA Released Standards On Limiting Methane Standards At Oil And Natural Gas Sites; Numerous States Are Suing To Block The Rules. According to The Hill, "More than a dozen states have sued the Obama administration over a new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to limit methane emissions at oil and natural gas sites. West Virginia, along with governments and agencies representing 12 other states, filed suit against the EPA on Tuesday, looking to block methane standards the agency released in May. The rule, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) said in a statement, is unnecessary and would add new costs to oil and gas drillers' operations. Morrissey also warned the rule will allow for follow-up regulations from future presidential administrations." [The Hill, 8/2/16]
Methane Is A Greenhouse Gas And The Main Component Of Natural Gas. According to The Hill, "Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas and also the main component of natural gas. Drillers oppose the rule, saying they are reducing emissions on their own because they have a financial incentive to capture as much methane as they can in order to put it on the market." [The Hill, 8/2/16]
2022: Schweikert Voted Against Providing Funding For Several Activities And Projects To Lower Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Advocate For Energy Efficiency And Mitigate Climate Change Impacts. In August 2022, according to Congressional Quarterly, Schweikert voted against concurring in the Senate amendment to the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which would "provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including $27 billion for grants to state, local and nonprofit entities for greenhouse gas emission reduction activities; $9.7 billion for zero-emission or carbon capture rural electric systems; $5 billion for loan guarantees to replace or reduce emissions of energy infrastructure; $3 billion for zero-emission vehicles for the Postal Service; and $1.6 billion for methane emissions reduction and mitigation." The vote was on a motion to concur. The House concurred with the Senate by a vote 220-207, thus the bill was sent to President Biden for final signage. President Biden signed the bill and it ultimately became law. [House Vote 420, 8/12/22; Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22; Congressional Actions, H.R. 5376]
The Bill Provided $27 Billion In Grants For State, Local And Non-Profit Entities To Address Greenhouse Gas Emissions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including $27 billion for grants to state, local and nonprofit entities for greenhouse gas emission reduction activities;" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22]
The Bill Provided $9.7 Billion For Zero-Emission Or Carbon Capture Rural Electric Systems. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including [...] $9.7 billion for zero-emission or carbon capture rural electric systems;" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22]
The Bill Provided $5 Billion For Loan Guarantees To Replace And Reduce Emissions Of Energy Infrastructure. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including [...] $5 billion for loan guarantees to replace or reduce emissions of energy infrastructure;" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22]
The Bill Provided $3 Billion For Zero-Emission Vehicles For The U.S. Postal Service. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including [...] $3 billion for zero-emission vehicles for the Postal Service;" [Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22]
The Bill Provided $1.6 Billion For Methane Emissions Reduction And Mitigation. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill would provide funding for various activities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, promote energy-efficient technologies and mitigate the impacts of climate change, including [...] $1.6 billion for methane emissions reduction and mitigation." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/12/22]
The Inflation Reduction Act Created A $1.5 Billion Program That Included Incentives For Companies That Reduce Methane Emissions And Penalties For Companies That Do Not Mitigate Methane Emissions. According to The Washington Post, "The bill creates a $1.5 billion program that includes new payments for companies that cut emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, with some penalties for those firms that do not." [The Washington Post, 8/7/22]
The Bill Included $60 Billion For Renewable Energy Infrastructure In Manufacturing, Such As Solar Panels And Wind Turbines. According to NPR, "This portion of the bill takes on transportation and electricity generation, and it includes $60 billion for growing renewable energy infrastructure in manufacturing like solar panels and wind turbines." [NPR, 8/7/22]
The Bill Provided $27 Billion In Grants Would Help Attract Investment In Technologies Such As Rooftop Solar, $20 Billion In Loans To Create New "Clean Vehicle Manufacturing Plans," And A Penalty On Methane Emissions. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The bill's other climate and energy provisions include $27 billion in grants to help attract private investment in 'zero-emission technologies' such as rooftop solar; $20 billion in loans to establish new 'clean vehicle manufacturing plants' and a fee on emissions of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas, from oil and gas sites." [Congressional Quarterly, 8/7/22]
2014: Schweikert Voted To All-But-Block Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulation Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Coal And Other Fossil Fuel-Burning Power Plants As Part Of The American Energy Solutions For Lower Costs And More American Jobs Act. In October 2014, Schweikert voted for limiting the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled power plans under the Clean Air Act. According to Congressional Quarterly, the legislation would have "limit[ed] EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled power plants under the Clean Air Act. It nullifies EPA's recently issued rules for new electricity-generating power plants and only allows EPA to set national standards for new plants that have already been broadly adopted by industry, and it blocks EPA regulation of existing power plants unless Congress later allows EPA to do so." The underlying measure was the American Energy Solutions for Lower Costs and More American Jobs Act. The vote was on the bill. The House passed the bill by a vote of 228 to 194; the bill was then sent to the Senate, which did not take any substantive action on it. [House Vote 515, 9/18/14; Congressional Quarterly, 9/15/14; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2]
December 2009: Acting In Response To A 2007 Supreme Court Decision, EPA Formally Found That Greenhouse Gases Were A Threat To The Public Health And Welfare, Requiring That EPA Issue Rules To Control Them. According to Congressional Quarterly, "EPA regulation of greenhouse gases began shortly after the Supreme Court's 2007 ruling in the case Massachusetts v. EPA. In a 5-4 decision, the court held that greenhouse gases were air pollutants as defined by the Clean Air Act. As a result, the court required the EPA to make an 'endangerment finding' regarding the pollutants' effect on public health and welfare, or determine whether the science used to make such a finding is too uncertain to make a clear determination. EPA issued an endangerment finding in April 2009 [sic: December 2009], in which it stated that current and projected atmospheric concentrations of six key, well-mixed greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. EPA identified the six 'well mixed' greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexaflouride [sic]. EPA's finding marked the first time that stationary-source greenhouse gas emissions would be covered by a 'prevention of significant deterioration' program, and EPA began a formal rule-making to address those gases." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14; EPA Endangerment Finding Final Rule, Federal Register, 12/15/09]
Natural Gas- And Coal-Fired Power Plants Account For 40 Percent Of Stationary U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Fixed Sources. According to Congressional Quarterly, "According to the EPA guidance for the new regulations, permitting will focus on the largest industrial emitters, including electric-generating facilities, large boilers, pulp and paper production plants, cement facilities, iron and steel plants, refineries and nitric acid plants. The finding stated that nearly 70% of stationary greenhouse gas emissions in the United States come from these sources --- including 40% that come from gas- and coal-fired electrical power plants." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
January 2014: EPA Issued Regulations Limiting Carbon Dioxide Emissions For Any New Coal- And Fossil-Fuel-Burning Power Plants. According to Congressional Quarterly, "In June 2013, President Obama directed EPA to develop greenhouse gas emission standards for new and existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants. Acting under that directive, the EPA in September 2013 proposed rules for new power plants. The proposal would limit new large, natural-gas-fired turbines to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour, while new small, natural-gas-fired turbines would be limited to 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour. New coal-fired units also would have to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour and would have the option to meet a somewhat tighter limit if they choose to average emissions over multiple years, which would give those units more operational flexibility. To achieve EPA's proposed limits for coal-fired power plants, those plants would likely have to install carbon capture and sequestration technology. These final rules for new power plants were issued on Jan. 8, 2014." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Would Require That, After Its Enactment, EPA Could Only Impose Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards On New Power Plants That Industry Had Already Voluntarily Implemented At Least Six Plants Nationwide. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Under the measure, EPA in the future could issue greenhouse gas emission standards for new power plants --- but only if those standards have been in use by the industry for at least six, nationally disbursed power plants for a full year on a commercial basis." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill's Supporters Argued It Would Protect Coal Power Industry -- And The Jobs And Affordable Electricity It Provides -- From "Unreasonable" EPA Rules That They Say Would Effectively Block New Plant Construction. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Supporters of the bill, including most Republicans and the energy industry, argue that it is needed to preserve jobs and ensure that Americans have affordable electricity. They note that because coal is both plentiful and affordable, it is the largest source of electricity in the nation and a significant driver of jobs. Energy produced from coal is highly reliable, and having coal as part of America's energy mix provides homeowners and small businesses with reasonable electric bills and manufacturers with low energy costs that help them remain globally competitive. EPA's unreasonable rules, they say, would prevent new coal-fired power plants from ever being built. [...] The bill is needed to prevent EPA's unreasonable proposals from going into effect, they say; if allowed to be implemented, the rules will surely be the nail in the coffin for any future coal-fired power plants since the carbon capture and storage technology that would be required is far too costly." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Supporters Argued EPA Regulations Over The Past Five Years Have Already Contributed To The Closing Or Scheduled Closing Of Several Existing Coal Power Plants, Leading To Significant Job Losses. According to Congressional Quarterly, "EPA's proposed greenhouse gas standards for new coal-fired power plants threaten the viability and reliability of our entire system, they contend, saying that EPA's harm is no longer speculative, as a number of existing coal-fired power plants have already shut down or are scheduled to do so in the near future. Their owners have attributed the shutdowns, at least in part, to EPA regulations enacted over the past five years, which, they say, also led to massive job losses." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Opponents Argued It Effectively Denies The Science Behind Climate Change And Ignores The Threat To Americans From It. According to Congressional Quarterly, "Opponents of the bill, including most Democrats and environmental groups, contend that it would effectively repeal EPA's existing legal authority to address carbon pollution for power plants under the Clean Air Act, protecting energy producers at the expense of the general public. They say EPA in 2009 determined that greenhouse gas pollution threatens Americans' health and welfare because it would lead to long lasting changes in the world's climate, which could have a wide range of negative effects on human health and the environment. By blocking EPA rules, the bill effectively denies the science of climate change and ignores its risks, they argue." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
Bill Opponents Argued It Would Effectively Give The Coal Industry A Permanent License To Pollute, By Blocking EPA From Requiring That Coal Power Plants Reduce Their Carbon Emissions Or Helping Industry Move To New, Cleaner Power Plant Designs. According to Congressional Quarterly, "The measure also would prevent EPA from protecting the American people from carbon pollution by helping transition the power industry to cleaner generation of coal-powered electricity, they say. The bill would effectively block EPA from ever requiring current coal-fired power plants to control carbon pollution to any significant degree, absent adoption of Congress enacting a new law. And for new coal-fired power plants, it reverses decades of Clean Air Act precedent and practice to bar EPA from requiring pollution controls unless such controls have already been broadly adopted by the industry without any government financial assistance in any form. This, they say, would let coal-fired power plants pollute indefinitely and with impunity." [Congressional Quarterly, 3/3/14]
2024: Schweikert Voted Against Authorizing The EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. In March 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the bill that would repeal authorizations for the EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund that helps finance clean energy and technology projects as well as the Methane Emission Reduction Program that promotes reductions in methane emissions, both of which were authorized and funded as part of the 2022 climate, health and tax law. It also would rescind any unobligated funds from those programs." The vote was on passage. The House passed the bill by a vote of 209 to 204. [House Vote 104, 3/22/24; Congressional Quarterly, 3/22/24; Congressional Actions, H.R. 1023]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Minibus That Thwarted Congress's Ability To Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit use of funds made available by the bill to prepare, propose, or promulgate any regulation or guidance referencing analysis contained in certain documents published by the White House council on environmental quality and by the interagency working groups on the social cost of carbon and greenhouse gases." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 186-248. [House Vote 362, 6/19/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/19/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.383; Congressional Actions, H.R. 2740]
2024: Schweikert Voted To Nullify An EPA Rule That Would Phase In Stricter Vehicle Emissions Standards Through 2032. In September 2024, Schweikert voted for , according to Congressional Quarterly, "the joint resolution that would nullify the April 2024 EPA final rule that would establish new emissions standards for light-duty and medium-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027 to limit greenhouse gasses and pollutants. Under that rule, stricter emissions standards would be phased in each year through model year 2032." The vote was on passage. The House passed the joint resolution by a vote of 215 to 191. [House Vote 438, 9/20/24; Congressional Quarterly, 9/20/24; Congressional Actions, H.J.Res.136]
2019: Schweikert Voted For An Amendment To The FY 2020 Continuing Appropriations To Block Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards For Vehicles. In June 2019, Schweikert voted for an amendment that would, according to Congressional Quarterly, "prohibit the use of funds made available under the bill to implement a December 2009 Environmental Protection Agency rule making findings on greenhouse emissions." The vote was on adoption of the amendment. The House rejected the amendment by a vote of 178-254. [House Vote 383, 6/20/19; Congressional Quarterly, 6/20/19; Congressional Actions, H.Amdt.439; Congressional Actions, H.R.3055]