President Obama’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” is a good starting point for the coming debate over energy policy. The incentives for clean energy technology deployment outlined in the plan would advance U.S. energy security and ensure U.S. leadership in energy technology innovation.

The plan also rightly and smartly “widens the technology tent,” going beyond traditional renewable technologies to include highly efficient gas turbines, advanced coal technology with carbon capture and storage, and other advanced energy technology solutions – which enables power providers and regulators to choose the best technologies to meet their local circumstances and minimize the cost to consumers.

A wide technology tent is important to achieving congressional support for any energy proposal. Conflicts over energy policy typically fall along regional, not party, lines, with different parts of the country having differing resource mixes and energy use patterns. Choice of technology reduces regional disparities and thus should be more politically achievable than proposals of the past.

We have already seen the positive impact that far-sighted state policies, such as a state renewable portfolio standard, can have. These policies have driven state demand for renewables, attracted manufacturing investment and created good paying jobs. These actions have changed America’s energy landscape by creating a more diversified electric power portfolio of technologies and enhanced U.S. energy security.

We know that U.S. energy security will be impacted by wider adoption of electric vehicles (EVs), which we predict will be driven by expected high gasoline prices. Accelerating electrification of the U.S. vehicle fleet is one of the most effective ways to increase fuel economy. As EVs command greater sales in the United States, electricity generated from domestic fuels will increasingly displace imported energy – a major development for future U.S. energy security and sustainability.

Natural gas will also take on greater importance in bolstering U.S. energy security, as new domestic reserves are utilized. Advanced gas turbine technology enables flexible operation of highly efficient gas power plants, thus enabling the integration of intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, while protecting the reliability and stability of the electric grid.

Investments in utility-scale renewable power will increase the supply of domestic energy and boost U.S. energy security. Already, the cost of commercial-scale wind and solar power has dropped dramatically in recent years. For example, GE recently announced a breakthrough in lower-cost, thin-film solar panel technology that will further reduce solar power costs. We plan to build the largest thin-film solar factory in the United States and have it up and running in 2013. As the cost of solar energy drops, some investment analysts suggest that solar power costs will achieve grid parity in some U.S. regions this year, an important tipping point that we expect will spur continued deployment.

Cleaner coal technology can ensure that America’s most abundant fuel remains an important part of the U.S. energy mix, but only if government policies create the right framework to reduce barriers and lower costs for commercial-scale advanced coal power technology with carbon capture and storage.

Companies, such as GE, have to do their part and so too must the government. We applaud President Obama for his energy vision, and we look forward to working with him, Congress and all stakeholders to enact policy certainty this year.

This week, the U.S. House passed legislation to preempt the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating greenhouse gases, while the U.S. Senate failed to pass similar legislation. With a promise from President Obama to veto the legislation should it pass—and a potential government shutdown looming—it is unlikely that Congress will preempt the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations.

Putting aside the greenhouse gas regulations debate, perhaps there is legislation related to the EPA that President Obama and Congress can agree upon. Yesterday, the House Energy and Power Subcommittee held a hearing on legislation called the “TRAIN Act” by Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) and Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT), which would “require analysis of the cumulative impact of certain rules and actions of the Environmental Protection Agency on global economic competitiveness, energy prices, employment, and reliability of the U.S. bulk power supply.” In other words, the legislation would require the government to conduct an in-depth analysis of the effects of what many are calling the EPA’s “trainwreck” of regulations.

With so many regulations on the horizon, it is important that we understand how they will affect energy reliability, jobs, and the economy. We’re unfortunately already seeing the “trainwreck” come to fruition with two recently released regulations—the Utility MACT regulations, which will require power plants to install expensive new environmental controls, and water regulations, which will require large power plants to also comply with cumbersome regulations on the man-made cooling water systems.

These regulations place burdensome and unreasonable mandates on energy generators, and will ultimately cause some of our power plants to shut down. They are burdensome in that the regulations are being implemented all at once, requiring power plants to install exorbitantly expensive controls, in some cases on plants that are too old for the new technologies. The likely result is that many plants will go out of service, because electricity providers will find it more economically prudent to close the plants rather than install the technology. This heightens America’s energy insecurity as a whole.

Furthermore, the regulations are unreasonable. The Utility MACT rules are unreasonable because many power plants have already installed pollutant scrubbers and other emission-control technologies based upon what they can afford and what technologies work on the existing power plants. The new water rules are unreasonable, too, because they require power plants to take expensive steps to protect the “ecosystems” (i.e. fish and insects) in the man-made lakes that cool the power plants. And while protecting natural ecosystems is laudable, it seems unreasonable and downright silly to require expensive measures to protect ecosystems that the power plants themselves created.

We can all agree that it’s important to integrate cleaner, renewable sources of energy into the grid where it makes economic sense to do so—and we can all agree that it is important to take steps to preserve air quality and the environment for future generations. However, it is equally important to consider the economic consequences of rushing to achieve these goals, and we should not be allowing regulations to go into effect that will destroy our most affordable and reliable source of energy while threatening jobs and the economy.

Whatever happens in Congress today, and over the coming weeks, I hope that Congress and the Administration can agree upon the need to stop the coming “trainwreck” until we fully understand how these regulations will affect energy reliability, jobs, and the economy.

As the clock ticks down to 11:59 on Friday night, all eyes are on the budget negotiations taking place among the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader and the President. Senate Majority Leader Reid indicated Thursday morning that anti-environmental riders blocking EPA's ability to set and enforce Clean Air standards are among the remaining issues to be addressed.

This development came one day after the Senate voted to reject a series of amendments to a small business bill that would have constrained EPA’s authority. The White House followed up on the Senate votes with a statement saying it was “encouraged” by the Senate’s defense of EPA’s ability to protect public health, and noting that “the Senate also rejected an approach that would have increased the nation's dependence on oil, contradicted the scientific consensus on global warming, and jeopardized America's ability to lead the world in the clean energy economy.”

The White House statement appeared timed to signal that the Obama Administration will not accept budget riders in the continuing resolution that they are negotiating with the House and Senate to fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Administration is right to reject these riders, as is Senator Reid.

In the first place, as major attempts to rewrite policy, such riders have no place on a funding bill. And although the House voted Thursday afternoon to approve a sweeping bill that would block EPA from exercising its authority under the Clean Air Act to set air pollution standards to protect public health, the Senate’s rejection on Wednesday of a nearly identical amendment is evidence that there is not sufficient support in the “upper body” for passing such far-reaching legislation through regular order.

Efforts to disable the Environmental Protection Agency would roll the clock back on forty years of using the bipartisan Clean Air Act to protect public health. The science is clear that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger human health and the environment through their contribution to climate change and ocean acidification, and in turn through reduced urban air quality and water availability. Absent a comprehensive policy solution to limit greenhouse gas emissions, it is critical that the U.S. continue to deploy all of its existing tools to address this systemic challenge.

Stopping EPA from taking action would send a terrible signal to the rest of the world, signaling that the U.S. is backpedaling on climate change, even as China, Brazil and other countries are speeding ahead. This will adversely affect not only the United States’ standing in the world, but our economy. Investors are increasingly sending clean energy investment dollars to other countries, judging that the U.S. is not serious about clean energy and addressing climate change. Blocking EPA’s authority will not help.

Reports this morning suggest EPA riders may be out of the negotiations over the continuing resolution. We can only hope that is correct.

The American public enjoys tremendous economic benefits from environmental protections. Given this track record of responsible regulation, EPA deserves to have its power to be safeguarded, not stripped away.

Recently, certain members of the U.S. House and Senate have engaged in attempts to hijack measures like the small business reauthorization bill and the appropriations negotiations by attaching amendments and riders that gut EPA’s authority to control greenhouse gas emission. Polluters with distaste for the small rise in the cost of doing business associated with emissions controls have fought alongside certain politicians willing to skew or outright ignore scientific fact, to undermine EPA’s power to move forward with rules requiring emissions reductions.

These attacks on the science of climate change have reached the level of the absurd. For example, one member tried to make it sound like the concern over carbon emissions was in regards to direct contact saying, “I exhale carbon dioxide every time I take a breath” (quote around the 3:19 mark).

These non-scientific arguments, coupled with claims of widespread economic harms from emissions limits, form the faulty foundation for the anti-EPA fervor on the Hill. Business representatives raise the specter of lost jobs and less investment as examples, but seldom, if ever, back up those claims with rigorous empirical analysis. Indeed, when Policy Integrity asked economists what they think of greenhouse gas emissions, the overwhelming majority agreed that climate change poses risks to the economy, and that controls are needed.

But if a fair reading of the facts were driving the debate, we’d be focusing on the billions of dollars in public benefits that would be blocked if EPA’s powers were removed. Curbing or nullifying its authority to administer emissions regulations would mean a significant economic hit for the public if uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions are allowed continue.

Unfortunately since industry does not directly profit from the economic benefits of avoiding the negative consequences of pollution, it is up to our representatives to protect them. The public supports the EPA and its enforcement of clean air standards and regulations. The costs of not allowing the EPA to do its job are too great.

In 2009, President Obama tried furiously to shepherd cap-and-trade through Congress. His efforts failed because as more Americans learned about the bill, they realized that it wasn’t about the environment at all. Now the President is trying to push the same exact rules through his bureaucratic Environmental Protection Agency. The American people will come to realize that these proposed regulations will have the same effect on the economy as would the cap-and-trade scheme: jobs will be destroyed or sent overseas and energy prices will ‘necessarily skyrocket’ for all Americans.

There is no question that President Obama will defend the EPA. He has made increasing the cost of traditional energy sources – which provide us with nearly 85 percent of our energy – a central tenant of his energy agenda. Regulating carbon dioxide (or ‘carbon pollution,’ as he and his allies like to call it) is a key component of that plan.

There is also no question that if the President is concerned about keeping jobs in the U.S. and keeping energy prices low for all Americans, he should demand that the EPA drop its nonsensical assault on the American people. This new ‘green tape’ will cost businesses billions of dollars a year and force companies to either lay off workers or send jobs to China, India, and the other developing nations of the world. At a time when Americans are struggling to make ends meet after a difficult recession, the Obama Administration seems more focused on satisfying their left-wing base than putting Americans back to work.

Advocates of this EPA power grab would like us to believe that because EPA’s initial regulations would only apply to power plants and oil refineries, the cost of the regulations would stop there. What they fail to point out is that these costs will then be passed on to the consumers. Power plants produce electricity that powers hospitals, schools, churches, and factories. Oil refineries produce gasoline that is used by all Americans. The costs incurred by power plants and oil refineries from the proposed EPA regulations will undoubtedly be passed onto those end-use consumers. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to retake economics 101.

Ironically, proponents of these regulations claim that they are necessary to protect the public health, when in fact the opposite is likely the case. Affordable, reliable energy has led to the healthiest and wealthiest century that the earth has ever seen. Benefits that used to be reserved for kings are now an everyday occurrence for middle class Americans because of their access to affordable energy. Americans live longer than ever and have access to innumerable goods and services that make their lives better. This simply would not be possible without the affordable, abundant energy provided by coal, oil, and natural gas.

EPA’s regulations would take America backwards. They would make energy more expensive so that the middle class and poor would have less disposable income after paying their electric bills and filling up their gas tanks. They would compel American job creators to set up their business overseas where they could function without the costly regulatory burdens here in the U.S. And they would be a danger to the public’s health by raising the prices of goods and services that help people live longer and healthier.

EPA’s regulations would hurt all Americans. If President Obama is truly interested in ‘winning the future,’ he needs to reverse course on his anti-energy agenda. And while we know that he has no interest in doing so, there is always hope and change.

Spring is in the air. And for many parts of the country, the sun is shining, birds are singing and flowers are beginning to bloom. It’s that time of year when we feel a natural pull to step outside, shake off the winter blues and take a deep breath of fresh air. But what if that air was suddenly dangerous to inhale? What if simply stepping outside and taking a deep breath actually risked your health?

That’s exactly what we face if members of Congress who seek to strip the administration of its ability to reduce life-threatening air pollution such as mercury, lead and carbon dioxide are successful in tacking certain policy riders onto the budget resolution this week. And it isn’t just the health of Americans they will put at risk –greenhouse gas pollution that contributes to climate change will continue to threaten our air, water, lands and wildlife as well.

Forty years ago, the Environmental Protection Agency was borne out of an environmental crisis that – with the glaring assistance of Ohio’s Cuyahoga River – could no longer be ignored. Now, instead of a single river catching fire, our entire planet is heating up. The impacts of climate change are already being felt by our wildlife and natural resources across the country, and they only promise to get worse. We can’t wait any longer to act.

The partisan-gridlock that paralyzes the current Congress has made it virtually impossible for effective clean energy legislation to progress. Which means that right now, the only mechanism protecting our fundamental right to breathe clean air and drink clean water is the EPA.

President Obama needs to take a firm stand behind the EPA and uphold its mission to protect American air, water and lands from harmful substances in addition to greenhouse gas pollution. Unlike the members of Congress who are shamelessly kowtowing to the selfish interests of the dirty polluters who bankroll their campaigns, the President should demonstrate that he is not willing to sacrifice the health of American people and natural resources to profit oil and coal companies who, in his own words, are “doing just fine on their own.”

We shouldn’t have to make a choice between the health of our country and whether or not our government has the money to run. By taking a strong stand against riders that would handcuff the EPA’s ability to regulate harmful greenhouse gas emissions, President Obama will send the message that dirty polluters won’t get away with dirtying our air and water.

It is interesting and perhaps telling that in his major address on energy last week President Obama omitted any defense (or even mention) of his EPA‘s efforts to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

It could be that he is seeing the economic realities of regulatory policy that could exacerbate already rising gasoline and energy prices. In recent testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power, I’ve highlighted the economic burdens caused by EPA’s stringent regulations on the cost of capital, investment spending, job growth and economic recovery (see testimony at http://www.accf.org/media/dynamic/5/media_515.pdf) Investment spending, a critical component to U.S. economic recovery, will be hampered by the EPA's pending GHG regulations, increasing the risk premium added to the firm’s cost of capital by 30% to 40%. One of the most adverse features of EPA’s regulating GHG’s under the CAA is the impact on business expenses, the cost of capital and on new U.S. investment. U.S. gross private domestic investment was down by $385 billion in the fourth quarter of 2010 relative to the fourth quarter of 2007. Any substantial investment could well exceed EPA’s threshold level of GHG emissions and be subject to yet unknown CAA requirements. Analysis with IMPLAN, an input-output model, shows that if U.S. capital spending declines by $25 to $75 billion, in 2014 there would be an economy wide job loss of 476,000 to 1,400,000 when direct, indirect and induced effects are included. As a result, GDP would be $47 billion to $141 billion less in 2014. The impact on U.S. businesses, large and small, will be far-reaching and severe and will prolong the weakness we are witnessing in the economic recovery– as EPA itself has recognized if the Tailoring Rule, which temporarily exempts smaller entities from EPA’s GHG rules, is invalidated. The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) emissions thresholds in the Clean Air Act are 100 or 250 tons per year (tpy), or less, depending upon the source category and whether at issue are a new source or a modification. A very large number of sources emit GHGs at or above those quantities. For example, EPA estimated that 4,535,500 existing single-family homes and apartment buildings, 1,355,921 existing commercial and public existing farms with diesel generators, and 4,131 existing landfills emit GHGs above 100 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent. With an economy still struggling, Congress should do all it can to prohibit or at least delay EPA’s regulatory authority on GHGs under the Clean Air Act.

After closed door meetings with energy industry lobbyists, it’s hardly a surprise that pro-polluter lawmakers have followed through with legislation in both the House and Senate to protect Big Oil’s profits at the expense of public health. But scientists at the EPA, not politicians in Congress, should determine our air pollution limits. President Obama and Congress should stand firm against big polluters and oppose all measures that limit the EPA’s ability to set commonsense limits on carbon pollution.

The Obama administration and Congress must work to put together a funding measure that avoids a government shutdown. But corporate polluters and their congressional allies are demanding that the spending bill also include provisions that strip the EPA of its authority to limit carbon pollution under the Clean Air Act. President Obama should do everything in his power to prevent these backdoor attempts to block, weaken or delay the EPA’s ability to protect public health under the Clean Air Act.

If any of these attempts to gut the EPA are enacted, it will kill innovation, put the health of American families at risk and keep our economy hamstrung by Big Oil which already collects twice on consumers, both at the pump and through excessive government subsidies. President Obama should make crystal clear that he would veto any legislation, the Continuing Resolution or otherwise, that includes provisions to block the EPA from protecting public health and holding polluters accountable.

Addressing climate change is a far-reaching challenge, and effective solutions will ultimately require actions from every sector in our economy and from around the world. Until Congress can agree on a comprehensive solution that would present a serious and fitting response to this global challenge, it is essential to get started with the tools available. The longer we wait for the perfect political solution, the higher the costs will be to achieve national and global goals to prevent the worst climate and social impacts. Common sense actions by EPA and by states will make important progress towards the President’s commitments to the global community, and will be critical to leveraging effective and verifiable actions in the rest of the world.

Under the Clean Air Act, states are required to regulate new sources of pollution to ensure that the new facilities and emitting units built today use the best available measures to control emissions. To ensure some basic consistency across states and help streamline the technology evaluation process, EPA is starting to develop minimum standards for new sources based on systems of emission reduction that are considered to be broadly achievable and adequately demonstrated. Building cleaner new sources is simply smart policy; taking these issues into account up front will be less expensive and more effective than future efforts to retrofit these sources, and avoids locking in decades of high emissions. Further, the Clean Air Act legislation now being implemented—the same legislation used to successfully and cost-effectively regulate other pollutants from new sources—includes built-in safeguards requiring that the costs of compliance be considered.

Because greenhouse gases are not listed as criteria air pollutants or air toxics for which the agency sets air quality standards or maximum achievable control technology, respectively, EPA must also issue regulations to guide states in applying “achievable” emission limits to existing sources based on the best systems of emissions reduction that have been “adequately demonstrated”. This presents an important opportunity to modernize our energy production and boost the competitiveness of our industrial base, as many of our older industrial sources fall short of international norms for energy efficiency and carbon intensity.

EPA has given every indication that it will implement these rules in a reasonable manner, starting with the largest industrial emitters—new and modified industrial sources that emit at least 75,000 tons of CO2 per year. This high threshold captures emissions from the largest industrial polluters while excluding small sources like hospitals from regulation. And in the case of standards for new sources and guidance for existing sources, EPA is starting with the two industrial sectors that contribute the most to greenhouse gas emissions: power plants and oil refineries. EPA has further indicated its intent to base initial guidance for existing power plants and refineries on emission levels that can be achieved through enhanced energy efficiency. In doing so, recent analysis by think tank Resources for the Future suggests the outcome will be nearly as cost-effective as some of the market-oriented approaches debated in years past.

Further, not all sources are opposed to standards. Electric utilities in particular, are looking for certainty on greenhouse gas regulation as this will help them to make important investment decisions on controls for other pollutants. Blocking the rules will only continue the uncertainty, raise the ultimate cost of compliance and cause greater health and environmental harm to citizens.

In summary, President Obama must be clear about his intentions to defend and support the EPA’s ongoing efforts to develop common sense policies that will improve energy efficiency at home while demonstrating “good faith” in sharing in the global challenge to protect the climate. While far short of what will ultimately be needed, failure to take these most basic and cost-effective steps would signal the Administration’s willingness to yield to short-term political pressures to shield powerful industries while putting at risk the global actions needed to preserve the well-being of future generations.

When it comes to cutting down on the dangerous carbon pollution from our largest power plants, refineries, and other big sources of dirty air, President Obama knows where the public stands – for clean air and against exemptions for polluters.

There shouldn’t be much debate about this – Congress passed a law, the Clean Air Act, which said that the EPA must act when it finds that a pollutant is endangering the public health and welfare. The Supreme Court, under a Chief Justice nominated by President Bush, ruled that greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide certainly meet the legal definition of “pollutant.” And both the Bush and the Obama EPA chiefs reviewed the science and concluded that the public was endangered.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is now complying with the law with a reasonable rule that would give the utility and refinery industries ample time to prepare for some regulation of airborne carbon pollution. It would:

• only apply to the biggest polluters
• Start with facilities already being regulated for other pollutants, and
• Phase in existing facilities on the basis of what is technologically achievable taking into account both environmental and economic impact

It is a travesty that these facilities continue to dump their waste into Americans’ air and stick families and communities with the bill. The President should continue to stand up and defend Americans’ health, clean air, and clean water. When it comes to balancing special interest exemptions against the health of America’s families, the polluter should pay, not the public.

(These comments were submitted by Phil Kerpen, vice president of policy at Americans for Prosperity.)

President Obama should take seriously Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution (which makes clear that legislative power is vested in Congress) and call off the dogs at EPA, accepting that his goal of steep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions must be an issue for Congress to decide. Given the high profile surrounding this week's votes on HR 910 and the McConnell Amendment, there will be a serious political price to pay for Members of Congress who shirk their responsibility to legislate and rubber-stamp the EPA's end-run around the legitimate legislative process. Obama would do right by his Democratic allies in Congress by taking the pressure off and agreeing to include a policy rider in the full-year continuing resolution.

The day after the election, the president infamously said that EPA regulation is another way of "skinning the cat" in the absence of Congress passing climate legislation. He needs to put that cat back in the bag -- skin intact. An appropriations rider is the minimal responsible action to avoid slamming our fragile economic recovery with burdensome job-killing regulations.

Although the Supreme Court in a very bizarre decision ruled EPA had the authority to regulate CO2, it did not say the agency must regulate. Its 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA decision ruled CO2 could be considered a pollutant under the Clean Air Act’s definition. It is important to understand that in 1990, Congress explicitly denied EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions -- a decision that should have pre-empted any subsequent interpretation by the Court.

Now we are faced with a situation where EPA proposed to regulate CO2 and then (probably under pressure from the White House) decided to delay imposition of the regulations. The reason for delay is simple; the agency’s regulations would have dealt a very damaging blow to an already struggling economy just over a year before the 2012 presidential election.

Countless analyses demonstrate the jobs, investment, and other economic benefits at risk if federal regulators attempt to stifle these emissions. The American Council for Capital Formation puts the cost of EPA’s greenhouse gas rules<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/567298/201103281759/Key-Vote-At-Hand-On-EPA-Authority.aspx> at 46,000 to 1.4 million lost jobs and $25 billion to $75 billion in lost capital investment by 2014, along with a $500 billion reduction in GDP by 2030, all while boosting gasoline and electricity costs by 50%.

The House of Representatives will pass legislation taking away the authority granted by the Court. It is clear that a majority of senators, although perhaps not 60, would vote to deny EPA carbon regulating authority. Only parliamentary maneuvering by Senator Reid is preventing common sense action that would give a much needed boost to the economy.

President Obama should accept that an unwillingness by him to accept a legislative constraint on EPA will prevent him from working effectively with Congress on legislation necessary to put the economy on strong footing. What the economy needs is consumer and business confidence. Until federal policymakers internalize that fact and incorporate it into their regulatory and legislative decisions, the economy will underperform.

Successful presidents are successful in part because they focus on a few very important issues. President Obama’s two highest priorities, the ones that should occupy most of his time, must be the military engagements now underway and the economy. Distraction caused by the issue of EPA being able to regulate and control the economy is unnecessary.