The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee passed a measure Thursday that would direct the Department of Energy to publish a study measuring the emissions intensity of manufactured products produced in the United States and compare it to competitors such as China.
Bill proponents argued that the information would give the U.S. a competitive edge by demonstrating that U.S. products are cleaner than those produced by adversaries as countries look to reduce emissions through various mechanisms, such as carbon taxes.
While the measure was able to pass with bipartisan support, several Republicans opposed it on the grounds that it would lead to a levy on carbon emissions. The bill, introduced by Sens. Chris Coons (D-DE) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), moved out of committee through a 14-5 vote, with Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), John Boozman (R-AR), and Cramer joining Democrats to move the legislation forward.
However, several Republicans had voiced opposition to the legislation. Ranking member Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) argued that the bill would further expand agency jurisdiction to pressure companies to disclose their carbon emissions and that the data used could further catalyze efforts to enact a carbon tax, an approach that has been favored by Democrats and has garnered some Republican support. Capito stated that a similar situation occurred with the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, in which a provision within the bill allowed for Democrats to enact a methane fee based on data collected on oil and gas operations under the Environmental Protection Agency.
“Even if we were to all agree that providing a study at this point is the only goal and not the imposition of a carbon tax or tariff, we have seen through the Inflation Reduction Act how innocuous data collection responsibilities can later be weaponized to implement damaging partisan policies, including taxes,” Capito said.
Capito said that the federal government already has repositories of greenhouse gas emissions data being collected by agencies such as the EPA and that officials need to “better understand the ones we already have.”
Cramer pushed back against the bill’s characterization, asserting that the measure explicitly says it does not create authority to levy a tax based on emissions.
“You’d be hard pressed to find two states more opposed to a carbon tax than West Virginia and North Dakota, believe me,” Cramer said. “So this insinuation that I’ve been pushing a tax on any of our manufacturers and producers is laughable.”
Furthermore, Cramer said that it would be useful for the U.S. to have its own data to push back against countries that are currently enacting their own forms of carbon border adjustment mechanisms, such as the United Kingdom.
Cramer said that the data collected would be compiled from existing data and would not require new information from companies disclosing their emissions.
Capito introduced two amendments to address her concerns, one amendment that would instead designate the EPA to collect the emissions data while including additional categories that are mentioned in Coons and Cramer’s bill, including lithium-ion batteries, hydrogen, uranium, critical minerals, solar panels, and wind turbines. The other amendment would prevent the bill from being used as the basis for any revenue measures, such as a carbon border adjustment mechanism or a domestic carbon tax.
Cramer, the bill’s co-sponsor, supported Capito’s second amendment in a move to help assuage concerns about the bill leading to any carbon levy, stating that the amendment would not change much about the underlying bill.
Neither amendment was adopted, however.
Other amendments included one from Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE), which would require the DOE to utilize the GREET model, a mechanism sponsored by the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to evaluate life-cycle emissions, to measure emissions relating to biofuels. Carper objected to the amendment, arguing it was too prescriptive and could undermine support for the bill if it was adopted. This amendment was voted down on party lines.
Ricketts had another amendment that he was planning on introducing that would delay the study until China is considered to be a developed country by international bodies.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“The [People’s Republic of China’s] economy has grown by more than 1,000%, and its emissions have more than quadrupled,” Ricketts said. “Yet the PRC has, and continues to strategize and act so that it can be treated as a developing country under international multilateral agreements, including the Montreal Protocol and the UN Convention on Climate Change. We cannot allow the PRC to self-designate as a developing country to gain unfair special trade treatment that it does not deserve.”
However, following his remarks, Ricketts withdrew his amendment.
