Geaux Lead. Geaux Fight. Geaux Win. 

Obama's EPA Is At It Again

The Obama Administration is hoping Thanksgiving will distract people from yet another round of EPA regulations. You can find more details on the regulations below, but the bottom line is that the anti-energy Obama agenda has charged full-speed ahead while Mary Landrieu has been chair of the Energy Committee.


Landrieu promised to be an influential voice for the energy community as chair of the Energy Committee, and her supposed “clout” has come up empty time and time again.


The Landrieu record:

·         Failed to pass Bill Cassidy’s bill to approve the Keystone Pipeline

·         Failed to push through offshore drilling revenue sharing reform

·         Failed to stop EPA regulations that hurt Louisiana more than any other Gulf state

·         Zero bills from the Energy Committee passed by the Senate

·         Voted to appoint anti-energy Obama bureaucrats

·         Donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect anti-energy Senators

“Mary Landrieu’s track record as a rubber stamp for the failed Obama agenda has dealt setback after setback to energy job creators across Louisiana and the country. Landrieu’s failure to stand up for Louisiana time and time again, on energy issues, immigration and ObamaCare are why voters are ready to fire her.” – Ben Voelkel, RNC spokesman



Obama’s EPA Is At It Again


Obama’s EPA Has Proposed New Ozone Regulations That Will Lower The Existing Standard From “75 Parts Per Billion To A Range Of 65 To 70 PPB.” “The Environmental Protection Agency is set to propose new regulations Wednesday to limit smog, kicking off the next great environmental power struggle—and setting up another difficult decision for President Obama. At issue is what is known as the air quality standard for ground-level ozone, which causes smog when certain pollutants combine in heat. EPA Wednesday proposed lowering the existing standard of 75 parts per billion to a range of 65 to 70 ppb.” (Jason Plautz, “With Proposed New Ozone Rule, Obama Tees Up Next Environmental Fight,” National Journal, 11/25/14)


  • The EPA Will Be Taking Comments On A Proposal To Lower The Ozone Threshold To As Low As 60 Parts Per Billion. “Setting the lower end of the proposal at 65 ppb, rather than the desired 60 ppb, sets off the possibility of more trouble, although the agency will take comments on a proposal of 60 ppb that could leave open the option of that moving forward.” (Jason Plautz, “With Proposed New Ozone Rule, Obama Tees Up Next Environmental Fight,” National Journal, 11/25/14)

Fellow Democrats And Job Creators Have Warned Obama Against Pursuing The Rule


Business Groups Have Warned That The Rule Would “Devastate The Economy” And Make It Difficult “To Open Or Expand Hundreds Of Manufacturing Plants.” “But business groups are just as adamant that a tough new limit on ozone would devastate the economy by making it difficult to open or expand hundreds of manufacturing plants in much of the country.” (Erica Martinson, “‘The Most Expensive Regulation Ever’,” Politico, 11/26/14)


  • The National Association Of Manufacturers Called The Rule “The Most Expensive Regulation Ever” And Projected It Could Wipe Out $3.4 Trillion In Economic Output And 2.9 Million Jobs. “‘This would be the most expensive regulation ever imposed on the American public,’ says the National Association of Manufacturers, which released a July study calculating that the rule would wipe out $3.4 trillion in economic output and 2.9 million jobs by 2040.” (Erica Martinson, “‘The Most Expensive Regulation Ever’,” Politico, 11/26/14)
  • In 2011, The Business Roundtable Warned The Rule Would Threaten “To Seriously Impede Economic Expansion,” Close Facilities, And Cost Businesses Tens Of Billions Of Dollars Annually. “The Business Roundtable, comprising chief executive officers of top U.S. corporations, argued in a letter to the White House last week that the Bush-era standard should remain unchanged because any change under consideration ‘threatens to seriously impede economic expansion.’ In areas where the standard isn't met, new businesses or those that expand would have to install emissions controls to avoid worsening ozone levels. The letter said that these costs, plus uncertainty and bureaucratic delays, could lead businesses to close some facilities and open new ones elsewhere, including outside the U.S. The Roundtable said a new rule for ozone levels would cost businesses $20 billion to $90 billion annually, depending on how tough the EPA makes it.” (Renee Schoof, “Business Groups Say New Smog Rule Will Hurt Obama In 2012,” McClatchy Newspapers, 7/21/11)
  • American Petroleum Institute Director Howard Feldman, In 2011: “This Could Be The EPA’s Costliest Regulation Ever,” And “No Rules Could Be More Detrimental To Economic Growth.” “‘This could be EPA’s costliest regulation ever,’ Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs told reporters Thursday morning.  ‘No rules could be more detrimental to economic growth, and they could not come at a worse time as the nation struggles with an unsteady economic recovery.’” (Andrew Restuccia, “House Republicans Call On EPA Chief To Testify On Smog Rules,” The Hill’s E2 Wire, 7/28/11)

Gov. Steve Beshear (D-KY) Has “Pleaded With Obama” To Not Propose The Rule, Warning “The Growth Of Our Economy Is Dependent On It.” “The rule also alarms some Democrats, such as Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, who pleaded with Obama last week to back off. ‘The growth of our economy is dependent on it,’ he wrote.” (Erica Martinson, “‘The Most Expensive Regulation Ever’,” Politico, 11/26/14)




In September 2011, Obama Scrapped The Proposed EPA Rule Out Of Concern For The Impact Of Regulatory Burdens And Uncertainty On The Economy. “President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands of congressional Republicans and some business leaders. Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.” (Dina Cappiello, “Obama Halts Controversial EPA Regulation,” The Associated Press, 9/2/11)


  • The Decision Came Three Days After The White House Identified It As A Regulation That Would “Cost Private Business At Least $1 Billion Each.” “The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.” (Dina Cappiello and Julie Pace, “Obama Halts Controversial EPA Regulation,” The Associated Press, 9/2/11)

Obama’s “Retreat On The Smog Standard” Came As The White House Sharpened “Its Focus On The President’s Re-Election.” “The full retreat on the smog standard was the first and most important environmental decision of the presidential campaign season that is now fully under way. An examination of that decision, based on interviews with lobbyists on both sides, former officials and policy makers at the upper reaches of the White House and the E.P.A., illustrates the new calculus on political and policy shifts as the White House sharpens its focus on the president’s re-election.” (John M. Broder, “Re-Election Strategy Is Tied To A Shift On Smog,” The New York Times, 11/16/11)


  • After Then-White House Chief Of Staff Bill Daley Met With Industry Groups To Discuss The Standards, He Was Shown A Map Of How The Regulations Would Affect 2012 Battleground States. “The same day, Mr. Daley met with industry groups, who gave the White House a map showing counties that would be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act if the stricter standards were put in place. The map showed that the rule would affect areas in the politically important 2012 election states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Ohio.” (Laura Meckler & Carol E. Lee, “White House Regulation Shift Is A Political Bet,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/12/11)
  • In An Oval Office Meeting, Obama Promised The EPA It Would Have An Opportunity To Revisit The Rule “If They Were Still In Office.” “The half-hour meeting in the Oval Office was not a negotiation; the president had decided against ratcheting up the ozone rule because of the cost and the uncertainty it would impose on industry and local governments. He clearly understood the scientific, legal and political implications. He told Ms. Jackson that she would have an opportunity to revisit the Clean Air Act standard in 2013 — if they were still in office. We are just not going to do this now, he said.” (John M. Broder, “Re-Election Strategy Is Tied To A Shift On Smog,” The New York Times, 11/16/11)

“Even Some Democratic Lawmakers Warned The White House That The Regulation Would Damage Their Re-Election Prospects.” (John M. Broder, “Re-Election Strategy Is Tied To A Shift On Smog,” The New York Times, 11/16/11)



In March 2008, Hillary Clinton Blasted The Bush Administration For Weakening Ozone Regulations, Promising To “Revise The Ozone Standards” As President. “This is only the latest in a long series of examples where the Bush administration's perversion of science helps special interests at the expense of public health -- though it is certainly one of the more brazen. I will work with Senate Environment Committee Chair Barbara Boxer to investigate the President's decision and to hold him accountable. And when I am President, I will end the Bush war on science. And I will work to revise the ozone standard to reflect the available standard and to protect the public health, as the clean air act requires. Months ago, I outlined a detailed agenda to restore scientific integrity to government decision-making.” (Hillary Clinton For President, “Statement From Hillary Clinton March 14, 2008,” Press Release, 3/14/08)

Paid for by the Republican Party of Louisiana. Not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee.