The new House Energy and Commerce Chair Fred Upton, R-Mich., has wavered in his position that carbon dioxide poses concern. He is now adopting the party platform that the apparent complications are not man-made, although his plan to strip EPA of its authority to regulate carbon is being one-upped by his party: The Republican budget would make deep cuts in EPA's resources.

Beyond a $3 billion reduction in EPA's budget, the House budget plan would also cut about $1.5 billion from the Energy Department's clean tech research program, says Frank Maisano, a utility industry spokesperson. It would furthermore trim $107 million in climate change-related programs across the government. President Obama, by comparison, is asking for about $8 billion more for clean tech programs -- to be paid by going after tax breaks given to oil and gas. 

If one buys into the thinking that regulating carbon is a waste of resources, then the sharper knife sounds good. But concerns exist that the move would be counter productive. That is because the goal of the Republican Party is to provide regulatory certainty and to help American businesses grow. But those same corporate interests would be reluctant to invest in new plants and people if they were kept in the dark about whether EPA would have the wherewithal to grant the necessary permits. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has already given the EPA the authority to monitor the carbon emissions from power plants, which it is now trying to do. Electric companies really don’t want a regulatory agency telling them how to do this; rather, they would prefer the U.S. Congress set the rules.

But the green lobby is tired of waiting for Congress. While the Democratically-controlled House passed such a climate change bill during the last session, it was unable to move forward in the U.S. Senate. It is imploring the EPA to exercise its power, although it has been critical of the agency saying that thus far it has only moved to limit the increases in carbon as opposed to order strict cuts. 

“The Upton-Inhofe bill is unprecedented political interference with science and with enforcement of clean air safeguards, which have improved our air for the past four decades,” says David Doniger, with the Natural Resources Defense Council, in his blog. “We have the clean energy technology to significantly reduce carbon pollution, just as we have with each other kind of life-threatening air pollution.”

Stalemate Certain

Upton, who along with Senator Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., say that carbon should not be included in the list of pollutants that EPA is allowed to oversee in the Clean Air Act. That move alone would serve to "legislatively" overturn the Supreme Court’s decision. For now, the regulations are tepid. But in two years they will tighten.  

The looming new rules are intended to be a boon to the clean technology sector, spawning innovation and jobs. But the bill’s sponsors, which also include Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-KY., say that such moves will have the opposite result. They are calling it a “backdoor” carbon tax that will hurt the country’s ability to compete.  

“We firmly believe federal bureaucrats should not be unilaterally setting national climate change policy,” the three said in a statement. “EPA’s cap-and-trade tax agenda will cost jobs, undermine the competitiveness of America’s manufacturers, and, as EPA has conceded, will have no meaningful impact on climate.” 

While some Democratic lawmakers from the coal region are supportive of those attempts to curtail EPA’s power, the Republican-led initiative will certainly fall short. Odds are that it will make through the House where the Republicans need a simple majority. But it is unlikely to garner the needed support in the Senate, which will require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that President Obama stands firmly on the side of EPA in this matter, noting that the central premise behind his presidency is the creation of a New Energy Economy. A sensible and cost effective approach to managing carbon releases would initiate such progress. 

“These efforts would halt EPA’s common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act to protect Americans from harmful air pollution that until now has not been regulated at all from any sources in this country,” she said, in a Politico report. If such a measure ever reached his desk, he would veto it. 

So, the Republicans have no chance of stripping EPA of its powers to regulate carbon while the Democrats will be unable to legislatively prescribe carbon cuts. Attempts to drastically cut EPA’s funding as a way to deal with the issue will also miscarry. The standstill will continue until at least the next election. 

Some agreement will be required, though, if the market is to respond. In the end, it must develop and distribute the tools to make environmental improvements. 

EnergyBiz Insider has been named Honorable Mention for Best Online Column by Media Industry News, MIN.