The Texas Association of Business announced its new venture, dubbed the Texas Center for Federal Policy, at an August 17 press conference, the Austin American-Statesman reported, joined by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

As the Statesman’s Kate Alexander wrote, the new group is taking up issues — particularly Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security — that national small business groups hadn’t gotten involved in:

Texas’ small businesses have long been represented in Washington by the National Federation of Independent Business, which supports deficit reduction and opposes tax increases on small business. The group has not taken a position on entitlement reform.

[TAB President Bill] Hammond said the Texas-specific lobbying effort would harness the power of the state’s local chambers of commerce and businesses.

“The delegation wants to hear from the folks back home,” Hammond said.

“Our members have told us that a lot of the pain and suffering they are feeling today is emanating from Washington, D.C.,” Hammond said at the press conference (watch the video below).

Last week Hammond penned an op-ed piece urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to remove Texas from its new cross-state air pollution rule, taking up a cause already backed by Gov. Rick Perry, Texas environmental regulators and the conservative Austin-based Texas Public Policy Foundation. Hammond’s opinion piece came days after three Texas Railroad Commissioners sent a letter urging Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott to take the EPA to court over the new rule.

While the EPA has said it’s determined Texas power plants can afford to make the necessary improvements without limiting the state’s power supply, a study by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas recently found otherwise.

Hammond’s op-ed argued the new rule wouldn’t just mean more expenses for a few big power plant operators, but would endanger Texas jobs — Texas coal, which burns dirtier than coal from some other parts of the country, would be at a disadvantage, he wrote:

When it comes to jobs let’s not forget the people who work in the mines producing Texas lignite coal to keep our lights on and all the other jobs this industry supports. There could be 14,000 Texas jobs at stake. Where will those folks go if the EPA dries up the market for Texas lignite? Many of these are rural jobs. The rural economy of Texas has been through enough in the ongoing drought without another blow like this.

The argument puts a small-business spin on an issue — the dangers of EPA regulation — that’s become popular among GOP leaders in both Texas and in Washington.

The group lays out its strategy in a pamphlet titled, “Washington Woes. Texas Solutions”:

In the coming months, the Texas Center for Federal Policy will rally like-minded organizations and elected officials from across the country around our message that meaningful entitlement reform is the only path to continued prosperity for our state and nation.

Over the last decade in Texas, the group has given almost exclusively to Republican candidates. In 2008, Hammond and TAB pled guilty and took a $10,000 fine for their improper role footing the bill for mass-mailing campaigns supporting Republican candidates in 2002, an effort connected to former House Speaker Tom DeLay’s other projects supporting GOP candidates with money from hidden sources.

As the Statesman noted in an editorial at the time, though, prosecutors’ failure to get a more serious indictment signaled the coming growth in corporate campaign money in Texas:

Hammond and his allies won the larger issue last year when a judge rejected an indictment against the Texas Association of Business in connection with the $1.7 million Hammond raised from 30 corporations to help 24 GOP House candidates.

For future campaigns, corporate executives will have to be careful, but as Hammond said Tuesday, the “right of corporations and associations to inform the public on how their elected officials represent them are completely upheld.”

The Texas Legislature enacted its first ban on corporate campaign contributions in 1905. Later, the rights of corporate and union executives and their supporters as individuals to make themselves heard was protected by the use of political action committees, which could collect voluntary personal campaign contributions — but not money from corporate or union treasuries.

But the courts in the Texas Association of Business case have held that corporations and unions have free speech rights that allow them to spend money on campaigns commenting on individual officeholders or candidates , as long as they don’t expressly advocate their election or defeat.

So, if you thought the Legislature was already dominated by business interests, just wait. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The list of cities is lead by Los Angeles; Washington, D.C.; San Francisco; Chicago; New York; Atlanta; Houston; Sacramento; Detriot; and the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. The agency estimates that the growth in energy star certified buildings across the country has prevented greenhouse gas emissions equal to the emissions from the energy use of nearly 1.3 million homes a year, which has protected health while saving more than $1.9 billion.

Des Moines first made an appearance on the national list in 2009, when it was part of a three-way tie (alongside Fort Collins, Colo. and Philadelphia, Penn.) for 24th place on the list of 25 top cities.  For the 2010 rankings, Des Moines has pushed forward one spot to hold the 23rd rank in the country. Philadelphia rocketed to 14th place, and Fort Collins no longer appears in the top 25.

According to statistics released by EPA officials, Des Moines had 60 energy certified buildings in 2010, which provided 8.3 million square feet in floorspace. The agency estimates that the space provided $3.7 million in savings, or the equivalent of about 6,000 homes.

In comparison, the top compliant city, Los Angeles, maintained 510 such buildings providing 106.1 million in floorspace. That city’s savings estimate was $117.9 million, or the equivalent of about 39,800 homes. Los Angeles has topped the list for the past several years.

“When it’s more important than ever to cut energy costs and reduce pollution in our communities, organizations across America are making their buildings more efficient, raising the bar in energy efficiency and lowering the amount of carbon pollution and other emissions in the air we breathe,” said Lisa Jackson, administrator of the EPA. “Through their partnership with Energy Star, metropolitan areas across the US. are saving a combined $1.9 billion in energy costs every year while developing new ways to shrink energy bills and keep our air clean.”

EPA debuted its list of cities with the most Energy Star certified buildings in 2008. Surpassing the growth of the past several years, in 2010 more than 6,200 commercial buildings earned the Energy Star, an increase of nearly 60 percent compared to 2009.

According to a database on the government’s Energy Star website, the entire state of Iowa was home to 67 Energy Star labeled buildings and plants during 2010. Of the total, eight were banks or financial institutions, two were courthouses, 37 were K-12 schools, five were office buildings, 11 were retail establishments, three were unrefrigerated warehouses and one was an industrial plant. The two courthouses making the list are the U.S. Courthouse in Des Moines and the Des Moines County Courthouse in Burlington.

Commercial buildings that earn the Energy Star must perform in the top 25 percent of buildings nationwide compared to similar buildings and be independently verified by a licensed professional engineer or registered architect each year. Energy Star certified buildings use 35 percent less energy and emit 35 percent less carbon dioxide than average buildings. Fourteen types of commercial buildings can earn the Energy Star, including office buildings, schools and retail stores.

Reid said yesterday before the meeting that he was unsure about bringing the proposal up for a vote in the lame-duck session, even though he had promised Rockefeller a vote on the bill before the end of the year. He told reporters yesterday:

It’s real hard just to say, yeah, we can do this, because we have limited time to go through all the procedural motions. But if there’s a way we can do it, I’ll be happy to work with him on that.

But after the meeting, both Rockefeller’s and Reid’s offices were quiet about whether any final decisions were made.

Regan Lachapelle, Reid’s spokeswoman said, “I don’t have a comment from the meeting.” And Rebecca Gale, Rockefeller’s spokeswoman, said simply, “Nothing yet.”

TFI got its hands on an internal email detailing efforts to delay the standards. While the story is Florida-specific, it gives readers a glimpse into how lobbying on these kind of issues works.

You can read the full story here.

The EPA issued the guidance today in advance of a January start date for first-of-their-kind limits on greenhouse gas emissions from large facilities like power plants. Industry groups have railed against the rules, citing their potential cost and arguing that the EPA should not be regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the first place.

In a statement, API Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman said:

The EPA is railroading job killing regulations onto states, localities and America’s businesses, during a time of uncertain economic recovery, without giving those affected adequate time to review, provide comments, or even implement the new regulations. EPA’s regulations take effect January 2, 2011, but it’s already November and EPA is just now releasing guidance documents for permitting.

The EPA guidance comes as the agency is preparing to require in January, for the first time, that new large facilities or facilities that need significant modifications implement Best Available Control Technologies, or BACT, to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

The new guidance does not require that states or local permitting authorities use a specific type of method for reducing emissions, but the EPA said in a statement today that it “anticipates that, in most cases, this process will show that the most cost effective way for industry to reduce GHG emissions will be through energy efficiency.”

Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office Air and Radiation, said in the statement:

To identify GHG reduction options, EPA and the states are now ready to apply the same time-tested process they have used for other pollutants. This shows that the Clean Air Act can be used to reduce these gases in a cost effective way.

Industry has been critical of the upcoming BACT requirements, arguing that they will impose prohibitive costs on building new facilities. On a conference call with reporters today, McCarthy said the requirements “will not significantly add to the burden or the timeline or the cost.”

It’s clear that Upton, who has the 12th best lifetime League of Conservation Voters score among Republicans, is being forced to underscore his conservative credentials to land the top spot on the committee.

In an editorial yesterday, the Examiner criticized Upton for voting for a land management bill that restricted access to federal lands for oil and gas leasing and for voting “no” on a bill to cut the EPA’s funding, among other things. “Upton’s claims of being a Reaganite notwithstanding, there is nothing in his voting record to suggest he would be an aggressive opponent of Obama’s plan to impose cap-and-trade through regulation,” the editorial said. On top of that, the editorial criticizes Upton for being “Democrats’ favorite Republican” to succeed the current chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.).

The Examiner also ran a story yesterday on Republican efforts to block the EPA and repeal parts of the health care law. In it, Upton said, “The bottom line, particularly if I am chairman, is we’re not going to allow them to regulate what they cannot legislate.” It’s that comment that Upton’s office highlighted in an email to reporters.

Upton is widely considered to be the frontrunner for the chairmanship of the committee. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) is also interested in the position, but he must be granted permission to waive the GOP rule limiting congressmen to three terms as the top Republican on a committee. Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) is also interested in the chairmanship.

Shimkus and Upton, in interviews this week by conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, signaled they would target White House climate and energy policy coordinator Carol Browner if they become chairman.

Upton said he would subpoena Browner to testify before the committee, and Shimkus said he would work to “defund” Browner and all of the other so-called policy czars, who were appointed and not subject to Senate approval.

In September, the EPA sent voluntary information requests to nine hydraulic fracturing service companies. The agency requested information on the chemicals injected into the ground to loosen natural gas buried deep under the earth’s surface, as well as information on the affects of the chemicals on human health and the environment.

Eight of the nine companies either complied with the request or made commitments to comply. Halliburton did not; as a result, the EPA has subpoenaed the company for the information.

The data is essential for completing a congressionally mandated study on fracking. The agency hopes to finish the study by 2012. The study is expected to be the basis for future regulation of the controversial practice.

Environmentalists have long criticized fracking, arguing that the chemicals used to extract the natural gas can find their way into drinking water. They have also raised questions about the lack of transparency about what kind and what amounts of chemicals are used in the practice. Many fracking companies refuse to reveal the specific mixture of chemicals they use, arguing that the information is proprietary.

While the EPA is not yet limiting emissions from these sectors, the agency said today in a statement that the data reported by the industry will “help identify cost effective ways to minimize the loss of methane.”

Starting Jan. 1, 2011, all oil and natural gas facilities that emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide a year must report those emissions to the EPA.

The industry releases a significant amount of greenhouse gases. Some background on the industry’s emissions, via EPA:

The petroleum and natural gas industries emit methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and are one of the largest human related sources of methane in the United States.  Annual methane emissions from intentional venting and equipment leaks from these industries are comparable to annual emissions from more than 40 million passenger cars.

The rule impacts a number of segments of the oil and gas industry, including offshore and onshore oil and gas production, natural gas storage and oil and gas pipelines. According to the EPA, it will cost the industry an estimated $62 million in the first year to comply with the rule and an additional $19 million for every year after that. That breaks down to about $16,000 per facility for the first year and $7,000 for the following years.

Despite an effort by the Obama administration to streamline the process for risk assessments under the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which evaluates the risk to human health of a number of contaminants, progress is still slow, the report says.

The EPA completed nine risk assessments of toxic chemicals last year and hopes to complete nine this year. While that’s “an improvement” from the Bush administration, “it would still take approximately 55 years to complete all of the assessments that EPA program offices need to complete statutory responsibilities,” a CPR statement says.

Risk assessments under IRIS are essential for determining the long-term consequences of exposure to certain environmental contaminants. Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), chair of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology, put it this way in CPR’s statement on the report: “We can’t wait for clusters of rare cancers or birth defects to tell us the consequences of a chemical exposure.”

Here are some highlights from the report:

• “Thirty-two hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) regulated under the Clean Air Act are not listed in IRIS at all, and 77 are listed but lack inhalation values, hampering the EPA’s ability to conduct residual risk assessments to provide an ample margin of safety.”
• “Three of 71 contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act are not listed, and neither are 64 of the 156 substances nominated to the Contaminate Candidate List, slowing EPA’s ability to develop enforceable standards for drinking water contamination.”
• “Eighty-seven of the 275 substances frequently found in Superfund sites and identified by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry as “high profile” have not been assessed.”