Press Releases


Entries in Carbon Tax (87)


Josiah Bartlett Center - RGGI: Report and Repeal 


Josiah Bartlett Center releases report as key Committee approves repeal

The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy, New Hampshire’s free-market think tank, published an in-depth report on New Hampshire's particaption in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as the House Science Committee votes to repeal the program.  The report, authored by Lead Investigator Grant Bosse, finds that the country's deep and lasting recession has cut demand for electricity and greenhouse gas emissions far more than RGGI.  He also writes that nearly half of the programs' revenues have gone to private sector businesses, creating a ratepayer subsidy for politically-preferred firms.

"But RGGI veers far from this market-based approach in how it allocates cap-and-trade auction revenues. The collapse of the secondary market means that almost all RGGI costs will be borne by utilities, and passed along to ratepayers. In New Hampshire, the PUC has doled out nearly half of RGGI grants to private businesses who have no obligation to repay the money. A multi-billion dollar university like Dartmouth College and an international conglomerate like Stonyfield parent company Group Danone could surely afford to pay for their own energy efficiency upgrades, or at the very least pay back ratepayers out of their lower electric bills."

New Hampshire has received more than $28 million in RGGI auction revenues since December of 2008, but has already committed more than $35 million to energy-efficiency programs and to balance the state budget.  Bosse projects that New Hampshire may have trouble selling off its remaining carbon credits this year.

"At Auction 9, only 75% of the available allowances were sold. At Auction 10, just 57% cleared at the Reserve Price. The next auction, scheduled for March 9, 2011 will see nearly 42 million allowances up for sale. Unless bidders come forward to purchase most or all of these allowances, New Hampshire and its partner states may not be able to count on finding willing buyers for their unsold allowances."

Meanwhile, the House Science Committee has approved a bill that would repeal RGGI in New Hampshire.  Bosse files a story at New Hampshire Watchdog on the key vote.


CEI - Today in the News: Carbon Prices, Green Energy, and the Pledge for America 


Carbon Prices


GE's CEO Jeffrey Immelt wants the U.S. government to set a long-term price for carbon so the U.S. can compete with China in the green energy market.


Adjunct Scholar Fran Smith criticizes Immelt's proposal.


"Immelt said that a carbon pricing scheme would create jobs[.][. . . .] Doesn’t sound like it, if he has in mind a cap-and-tax scheme. (Here’s also a useful primer on costs of global warming policies.)"




Elizabeth Warren


President Obama has picked Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren to run the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection--but he's managed to bypass a Senate vote on her nomination through a technicality. 
Senior Counsel Hans Bader explains Obama's strategy.


"To avoid having the Senate vote on her nomination (as the Constitution’s Appointments Clause clearly requires for such presidential appointees), which might result in her nomination being defeated, the administration has formally appointed her not to be Director of the Bureau (the position she will in fact be exercising), but rather to two other White House and Treasury Department positions that did not historically require Senate confirmation — positions from which she will informally control the Bureau.  In essence, President Obama is circumventing constitutional checks and balances, as Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman, a staunch liberal, notes today in The Wall Street Journal."



The Pledge to America


The GOP unveiled their "Pledge to America" yesterday.


Vice President Wayne Crews talks about where the writers of the "Pledge" should go from here.


"We may need to think well beyond this political pledge; What kind of society is sustainable over centuries?  How about over thousands of years? Whatever the requirements, we have to make sure that America is the kind that can survive. Even with creeping government growth and paternalism, a handful of centuries is enough to wipe out precious freedoms if government is not restrained. So we want to see packages like this pledge, but also serious, fundamental extensions of it that ask questions not driven merely by responses to the antics of an opposing  party."


Murkowski resolution - CEI coverage 

In case you are tracking today's debate and vote on the Murkowski resolution of disapproval with respect to the EPA endangerment rule, I thought you'd be interested in ongoing commentary from energy policy experts at CEI.  Let me know if you would like to interview a CEI expert on this important vote.
On Twitter, Iain Murray is tweeting about it today:  He also has write-ups on American Spectator: EPA Vote Coming Down to the Wire and NRO: Action Needed Now to Stop EPA Power Grab.
On, Marlo Lewis:
Boxer ignores — and conceals — the simple fact that the Murkowski resolution would overturn the “legal force and effect” of the endangerment finding, not its scientific reasoning or conclusions.
The resolution is a referendum not on climate science but on who shall make climate policy: Elected lawmakers who must answer to the people at the ballot box or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life?
Durbin claims that EPA made its endangerment rule after consulting with “scientists across America.” In fact, as the endangerment rule acknowledges, EPA largely based the rule on the IPCC reports. As the Climategate scandal reveals, the IPCC reports do not meet U.S. Government transparency and accountability standards.

On, Christopher Horner: Senate to vote on Obama’s power grab
EPA’s breathtaking Power Grab raises questions critical to our form of governance. The powers EPA has claimed for itself include staking out national policy on the contentious “climate” issue, and even amending the Clean Air Act on its own initiative and authority.


ALG Urges Senate to Restore Separation of Powers by Repealing EPA Endangerment Finding 

"Will the Senate vote to do its job, or will it instead vote to abdicate yet

more responsibility to an unelected, unaccountable executive bureaucracy?"

—ALG President Bill Wilson. 


June 10th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government (ALG) President Bill Wilson today urged the Senate to vote in favor of Senator Lisa Murkowski's resolution that would repeal an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant that Wilson said "violates the constitutional principle of the separation of powers."

"This is not necessarily an environmental, energy, or even a tax issue — it's a constitutional separation of powers issue," Wilson said.

"Even if a senator believes in the highly controversial dogma that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are harmful, he or she should be gravely concerned at the blatant power grab the EPA has engaged in to declare that those gases are covered under the Clean Air Act," Wilson explained.

"They are not, nor was it Congress' intention to regulate greenhouse gases when the Clean Air Act was authored.  Instead, it was a specious court ruling that greenlighted the unelected EPA to completely ignore the representative process of lawmaking by elected officials.  Senators now have the opportunity remedy that error in judgment by restoring Congress' prerogative in this area of policy," Wilson added.

In 2007, the EPA was sued to regulate greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.  "At the time," said Wilson, "the EPA did the right thing and said it did not have the unilateral authority to make the Clean Air Act apply to CO2, that it was up to Congress to make such a determination."

Wilson said certain Senators were "using the threat of unilateral EPA action to bully lawmakers to act on legislation restricting carbon emissions," including Senator Mark Begich of Alaska who recently said, "We need a comprehensive energy plan and if this keeps the fire under these guys to get something major done, I'm all for it."

Wilson described Begich's comments as "abhorrent to the legislative process."

"The Senate cannot complain about an all-powerful executive that makes its own laws without any vote, and then do nothing to rein in the EPA's power grab to define whatever it wants as a harmful pollutant, and to arbitrarily determine to what extent they will be restricted," Wilson said.

As reported by the American Spectator, the EPA changed the way the Clean Air Act applies to CO2: "The plain language of the Clean Air Act would apply the regulations to anyone who emits more than 250 tons of CO2 in a year. That means fast food franchises, apartment buildings, and hospitals would be subject to regulations aimed at clamping down on pollution from large industrial facilities. Even the EPA recognized the absurdity of this result. It took it upon itself to rewrite the law, saying that what the Clean Air Act meant in this case was 25,000 tons, not 250, and issued what it called a 'tailoring rule' to this effect. This represents a significant assault on the principle of separation of powers."

"Will the Senate vote to do its job, or will it instead vote to abdicate yet more responsibility to an unelected, unaccountable executive bureaucracy? This nation was founded upon the principle of representation, wherein the just powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed.   For Congress to allow an agency to capriciously set the nation's energy policy, to cede that power to the executive, is dangerous, irresponsible, and unforgivable," Wilson concluded.


"Earth Not on Fire: The Threat Posed by the EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding on the Individual and the Economy," Americans for Limited Government, June, 2010.

ALG Letter to U.S. Senate, June 8th, 2010.

"Apocalyptic EPA Should Not Be Setting Energy Policy," Editorial by ALG News, June 9th, 2010.

"The EPA's Reckless Endangerment," by ALG President Bill Wilson, June 8th, 2010.


NH Americans for Prosperity praises US Senate Candidate Jim Bender on Pledge to Oppose Climate Tax 

Jim Bender - US Senate 2010

Hollis, NH- Today the New Hampshire chapter of Americans for Prosperity released the following statement acknowledging US Senate candidate Jim Bender for pledging to oppose any legislation that relates to climate change that would result in a net increase in government revenue. 

Read the full release below.



Contact: Corey Lewandowski (202) 550-7839 or James Valvo (703) 224-3200

Americans for Prosperity Applauds U.S. Senate Candidate Jim Bender

-Signs No Climate Tax Pledge-

The New Hampshire chapter of the free market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP-NH) today applauded U.S. Senate candidate Jim Bender for signing the group’s “No Climate Tax Pledge.”  Bender joins more than 525 bipartisan lawmakers and candidates on the federal, state and local levels pledging to “oppose legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue.”   

“The one thing elected officials should be able to agree on is that global warming shouldn’t be used as an excuse to hike taxes on citizens and businesses,” said AFP-NH State Director Corey Lewandowski.  “We encourage all of New Hampshire’s elected officials and candidates for elected office to sign the pledge.”

New Hampshire signers include U.S. Senate candidates Kelly Ayotte and Ovide Lamontagne; U.S. House candidate Jennifer Horn; State Senator Sheila Roberge; and State Representatives John Reagan, David Bates, Mary Griffin, Charles McMahon and Carol Vita.   

Cap-and-trade took its first step toward enactment last year when the U.S. House narrowly passed the Waxman-Markey energy tax bill, which escaped the lower chamber by a scant seven votes despite significant bipartisan opposition.  The U.S. Senate has struggled to pass companion legislation, with several key Democratic senators openly expressing opposition to attempting to pass the energy tax bill. 

President Obama has made no secret of his support for the bill, which would be the largest tax increase in American history.  The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has scored the House plan as an $846 billion increase in federal revenue, a burden that will be borne by taxpayers and consumers for decades to come.

“Using the guise of climate change to transfer dollars from hard-working citizens to bureaucratic big government is unacceptable,” said Lewandowski. “Regardless of their stance on global warming, this should be common ground for all of our elected officials at all levels of government.”

The pledge is available online at  AFP does not endorse candidates.  All elected officials and candidates are encouraged to sign the pledge and go on the record in opposition to using the climate change issue to increase taxes and grow the size of government.