Orrin Hatch on Energy & Oil

Republican Sr Senator (UT)


Eliminate Kyoto Accords and implement more local control

Q: Do you think tougher laws are needed to protect our environment? A: We’re spending billions on lawyers with false science and a lot of other things that just aren’t working. First day in office, I will get rid of the Kyoto Accords that could add $3,000 to everybody’s fuel bill in America. I’m not going to [issue] executive orders that set aside huge, huge, vast lands without consulting with Congress and without consulting with the people in those particular states.
Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa , Jan 16, 2000

Revoke Kyoto Accords as environmental extremism

I don’t agree with environmental extremism that would make us uncompetitive with the rest of the world. One of the first things I would do, is revoke the Kyoto Accords. They place environmental extreme requirements on the US but nobody else. There’s no real reason, scientific or otherwise, why that should occur. It would cost [the average person] $1,500 to $3,000 more for fuel costs alone every year. It’s environmental extremism at its worst.
Source: Des Moines Iowa GOP Debate , Dec 13, 1999

Supports alternative fuels to meet EPA air standards

The Alternative Fuels Promotion Act will help to solve one of our nation’s most expensive problems -air pollution. This Act leaves behind command-and-control mandates from Congress and provides market-based incentives for consumers. By the EPA’s own estimates, the annual cost of achieving the new, stricter clean air standards will be about $47 billion annually. Wouldn’t it be wise to invest some of that money in the development of alternative fuels?
Source: senate.gov/~hatch “Statements” , May 11, 1999

Focus on market incentives to foster alternative fuels

Automobiles are a major source of urban pollution. Past efforts concerning alternative fuels have failed because they have been too heavy on mandates and too weak on incentives. If consumers are to begin buying alternative fuel vehicles, two elements must be in place: first, the price for vehicles and their fuel must be right; second, the consumer must feel confident that the infrastructure is in place with refueling stations widely available. [I propose meeting] these goals without mandates.
Source: senate.gov/~hatch “Statements” , May 11, 1999

Tax credits for electric cars, alternative fuels & stations

This legislation brings cleaner air, avoids expensive EPA regulations, and reduces our consumption of foreign oil.
Source: senate.gov/~hatch “Statements” , May 11, 1999

Voted YES on barring EPA from regulating greenhouse gases.

Congressional Summary:To prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change. The Clean Air Act is amended by adding a section entitled, "No Regulation of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases". In this section, the term 'greenhouse gas' means any of the following:
  1. Water vapor
  2. Carbon dioxide
  3. Methane
  4. Nitrous oxide
  5. Sulfur hexafluoride
  6. Hydrofluorocarbons
  7. Perfluorocarbons
  8. Any other substance subject to, or proposed to be subject to regulation to address climate change.
The definition of the term 'air pollutant' does not include a greenhouse gas, except for purposes of addressing concerns other than climate change.

Proponent's Argument for voting Yes:
[Sen. McConnell, R-KY]: The White House is trying to impose a backdoor national energy tax through the EPA. It is a strange way to respond to rising gas prices. But it is perfectly consistent with the current Energy Secretary's previously stated desire to get gas prices in the US up to where they are in Europe.

Opponent's Argument for voting No:
[Sen. Lautenberg, D-NJ]:We hear the message that has been going around: Let's get rid of the EPA's ability to regulate. Who are they to tell us what businesses can do? Thank goodness that in this democratic society in which we live, there are rules and regulations to keep us as a civilized nation. The Supreme Court and scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency agreed that the Clean Air Act is a tool we must use to stop dangerous pollution. This amendment, it is very clear, favors one group--the business community. The Republican tea party politicians say: "Just ignore the Supreme Court. Ignore the scientists. We know better." They want to reward the polluters by crippling EPA's ability to enforce the Clean Air Act.
Status: Failed 50-50 (3/5

Reference: Energy Tax Prevention Act; Bill Am183 to S.49 ; vote number 11-SV054 on Apr 6, 2011

Voted YES on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax.