The bill, H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, was sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.). Its stated purpose:

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency from promulgating any regulation concerning, taking action relating to, or taking into consideration the emission of a greenhouse gas to address climate change, and for other purposes.

The measure now goes to to the U.S. Senate for a vote, where it needs a two-thirds majority of support to pass. The Senate voted down similar legislation on Wednesday.

Defending the new law, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote an editorial in Friday’s Columbus Dispatch debunking arguments that the health care act has not destroyed the Medicare Advantage program or harmed small businesses.

“The Affordable Care Act is not perfect; no law ever is,” Sebelius writes. “The Obama administration continues to be open to any ideas to improve it. For example, Obama has joined with Democrats and Republicans in calling for the repeal of a bookkeeping provision in the law that was too burdensome on small businesses.”

Sebelius also claims that the law is, in fact, not bad for our economy, arguing that since the president signed PPACA into law, the economy has grown at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent and created nearly 1.4 million private-sector jobs.

But it’s on this last note that opponents have come out strongly against the law, armed with Congressional Budget Office’s recently released preliminary analysis of the president’s 2012 budget, which notes:

The provisions related to expanding health insurance coverage were projected to increase the deficit between 2012 and 2021 by $1.04 trillion, on net, in CBO’s January baseline; they are now projected to increase the deficit by $1.13 trillion over that period.

Subsequent figures related to how much the health care legislation is costing American taxpayers inspired The Washington Post to call “fuzzy math” on some of the assumptive projections, pointing to the GOP-led House Energy and Commerce Committee that claimed “Obamacare Price Tag Spikes by 54%” and The Wall Street Journal, which suggested costs from the new law have risen by 8.6 percent. The Energy and Commerce Committee released a statement this week saying the cost of the health care act has increased by $500 billion, “meaning, in only one year, the cost has increased from an already staggering $938 billion price tag to $1.445 trillion.”

From the Post:

Last week was the third time that CBO has provided an estimate for the cost of the health care bill. Each time, the number has been a little different because of various technical factors, and also because different budget windows are being used, such as 2010-2019, 2012-2019 or 2012-2021. The longer the budget window, the bigger the costs and the revenues, in part because the population is getting larger and the gross domestic product is expected to increase.

The Energy and Commerce Committee came up with its increase by mixing apples and oranges. It compared the gross cost of insurance coverage provisions calculated for 2010-2019 (that’s the $938 billion number) with new figures for a different budget window, 2012-2021 (that’s the $1.445 trillion figure.) That’s kind of like saying the cost of pizza went up by comparing last year’s price for a 12-inch pie with this year’s price for a 16-inch pie.

[...]

Yes, certain provisions do not kick in immediately, but neither do many of the new taxes. The revenue estimate by the Joint Tax Committee shows that $58 billion of revenue is raised in the first four years, compared to $380 billion over the last six years. As mentioned before, the cost numbers also get larger in later years because of population and GDP growth.

The Wall Street Journal came up with its increase by comparing a different set of numbers: the net cost (which strikes us as more reasonable than the gross cost used by the House committee) for the same time period, 2012-2021, as estimated in February 2011 and March 2011. But the Journal failed to note that the CBO cost estimate in February was actually lower than its initial estimate last year, so the overall effect from last year to this year is minimal.

Doing its own health care “myths” fact-checking, the St. Petersburg Times’ PolitiFact analyzed several common statements about the PPACA and gave them ratings of true or half-true.

The following statements were rated “true.”

• Under the new health care law, “if a landscaper wants to buy a new lawnmower, or a restaurant needs a new ice-maker, they have to report that to the feds.”
• New provisions of the health care law bar the use of flexible spending accounts and health savings accounts to pay for aspirin and other non-prescription health needs.
• “With this reform, every insured American gets valuable consumer protections, and every uninsured American can become insured.”
• “Obama put a 10 percent tax on tanning.”
• Orrin Hatch (and other Republicans) co-sponsored a 1993 health care bill that had an individual mandate.

These were rated “half-true”:

• The health care bill “cuts the deficit by over $1 trillion dollars.”
• The health care reform law pays for “6 years of benefits with 10 years of tax increases.”
• The majority of people in polls do “not support Obamacare.”
• Under the clear letter of the law,” Justice Clarence Thomas “must recuse himself” from the case challenging the constitutionality of the health care law.
• The federal government “may put 16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill.”

Read PolitiFact’s full analysis here.

“Today marks an unfortunate milestone for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the timeline for the reactor renewal process has now doubled without explanation, eclipsing 60 months with no end in sight for the Pilgrim and Vermont Yankee plants,” Upton said in a statement. “With a dozen outstanding renewal applications, the alarming rate of delay has put thousands of good paying jobs in jeopardy and has threatened to disrupt a reliable source of clean, affordable energy for surrounding communities and businesses.”

In the case of Entergy-owned Vermont Yankee the delay is related to safety concerns.

In August 2007 decayed wooden beams at that plant resulted in the collapse of a cooling tower.

Last year it was discovered that the plant was leaking the radioactive isotope tritium into ground and surface water and the Vermont Senate voted against allowing the state regulators to issue the plant a state license.

Earlier this month Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin told the the Associated Press that Entergy is “a company we can’t trust.”

“The plant is old and leaking,” he said. “There’s no place to store the (radioactive) waste. The world has changed and we need to change with it. It’s time for it to sleep.”

Just this week Vermont Yankee announced that it had detected a new tritium leak.

Though he doesn’t specifically mention cap-and-trade or climate science, he said he would work to overturn President Obama’s “job-killing policies” and ensure there is oversight for “every program.”

In the letter, which makes Upton’s candidacy for the committee chairmanship official, Upton tells his fellow Republicans that he:

WILL work with all the members of our Conference as one team;
WILL pass legislation to repeal ObamaCare;
WILL conduct rigorous oversight of every program, budget, regulation and agency
within our jurisdiction;
WILL aggressively cut spending by adopting new Committee rules to foster spending
cuts and eliminate government programs; and
WILL protect the sanctity of human life by rigorous oversight and passing legislation
to permanently ensure that no federal funds go toward abortion, including:  Rep. Joe
Pitts’ Protect Life Act and Rep. Chris Smith’s No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

But the letter does not lay out an energy agenda, nor does it address climate change. The letter is the latest effort by Upton to talk up his conservative credentials, amid criticism by some Republicans that he’s too moderate. In fact, some conservatives have even criticized Upton for his support for phasing out incandescent light bulbs in favor of more efficient ones.

But there was some good news for Upton today. Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard, voiced his support for Upton in a story this afternoon. “I know Upton quite well. He’s not as conservative as I am,” he wrote. “But he is especially well suited to be chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. On the issues the committee will take up, he is conservative. Republicans shouldn’t let a silly light bulb bill keep him from becoming chairman.”

Reps. Joe Barton (R-Texas), John Shimkus (R-Ill.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) are also hoping to get the chairmanship.

But it turns out he’s not the only one seeking the position. Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) also announced his interest in the position yesterday.

In a letter to House Democrats, Markey explained his decision. “I do so because I believe the twin issues of energy and the environment will be of paramount importance in the next Congress, and the Natural Resources Committee will be a critical forum in which the national debate over these issue will be played out,” he said.

Markey will likely have his work cut out for him. Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) is the leading contender to take over as chairman of the committee. In a statement released last week, Hastings said his priorities include increasing domestic energy production “through an all-of-the-above energy plan” and ensuring that the Obama administration is held “accountable” for its new offshore drilling policies.

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.), the current chairman of the committee, is seeking the ranking spot on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The current chairman, Rep. James Oberstar (D-Minn.), lost his re-election bid.

In his letter, Markey also acknowledged that the fate of the other committee he chairs, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, is in question. Some Republicans have said they’ll abolish the committee, which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) established in 2006.

The move comes as Upton has been touting his conservative credentials in an effort to win the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Republicans have criticized Upton for being too moderate on environmental issues, with one of his opponents, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), leading the “not-conservative-enough” charge.

Environmentalists and a number of lawmakers have mounted a massive campaign to oppose the pipeline project, known as Keystone XL. And they have set their sights on recent remarks by Clinton that suggest the State Department will approve the project. But it’s not just Democrats who oppose the project; at least one Republican, Sen. Mike Johanns (Neb.), opposes it because it would go through his state.

In a letter to Clinton, Upton said:

Government is currently standing in the way of this $7 billion privately funded project, which is expected to stimulate $20 billion in new spending for the U.S. economy and spur the creation of 118,000 jobs. Our number one priority must be job creation, and this is a prime example of the over-burdensome regulatory system that is killing the private sector.  Government must stand back and allow the U.S. economy to rebound. If not we will continue to see our jobs go overseas.

Here are some of his most memorable comments on the issue:

• “If we decrease the use of carbon dioxide are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?” he said at a 2009 hearing of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s energy and environment subcommittee. “We could be doing just the opposite of what the people who want to save the world are saying.”
• At the same hearing, Shimkus said: “I want to start with Genesis:8, verse 21 and 22, ‘Never again will I curse the ground because of man even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, sea, time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.’ I believe that’s the infallible word of God and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation.”
• He continued: “The second verse comes from Matthew:24. ‘And he will send his angel’s with a loud trumpet call and they will gather his elect from the four winds from one end of the heavens to the other.’ The earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.”
• “Today we have 388 parts per million in the atmosphere,” he went on. “I believe in the days of the dinosaurs, where we had the most flora and fauna, we were probably at 4,000 parts per million. There is a theological debate that this a carbon-starved planet, not too much carbon.”
• During another 2009 subcommittee hearing, Shimkus said, “When we breath in, we breath oxygen. When we breath out, we breath out carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is not a toxic emittent.”
• “I believe that the climate continually changes throughout the millions of years that the planet has been here on earth and will continue to change. I don’t think we can control the emissions from China and India, nor do I think they have any desire to control them,” he told Think Progress in 2009.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the current ranking Republican on the Energy and Commerce Committee and another candidate for the chairmanship, has similarly contrarian views on climate change. And Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), generally regarded as more of a moderate on environmental issues, has been touting his own opposition to greenhouse gas regulations in an effort to become chairman.

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.

The Nov. 1 Human Events column got little notice before the election, but Upton’s staff are giving it new life today.

Republicans have long criticized Browner and President Obama’s other so-called policy “czars” because they are not subject to Senate confirmation. In the column, Upton accused Browner of being overly secretive in her discussions with interest groups on key administration priorities like fuel economy rules and cap-and-trade.

Here’s the relevant portion of the column:

If Browner were a Bush administration appointee, you can bet that Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), a tenacious, partisan investigator, would have conducted vigorous inquiries and eviscerations surrounding such allegations.  Unfortunately, we have not seen the same zeal for executive branch oversight from the Democratic majority this session of Congress.  In fact, over the past two years, Browner has NEVER testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee—not one single time.  Given her extensive influence within the administration, one would think Waxman would want to hear her at some point.

Given her absence from Capitol Hill for the last two years, there is little doubt that she will surely become a familiar face with Republicans in charge.  We have questions, and the American people deserve answers.  The free pass of zero-accountability for Obama Czars will soon end.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), the most senior Republican on the committee, made it known tonight that he wants the spot, even though he must secure a waiver to take over the chairmanship because he’s already served three terms as the top GOP member of the panel. He told The Hill tonight that he will seek such a waiver.

Though Barton said he wants the chairmanship, many Republicans have privately raised concerns about putting Barton in the role. They point to an incident earlier this year when he appeared to apologize to BP for the way the Obama administration treated the company after the spill. Press reports indicate that Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) would also like to take over the chairmanship of the committee.

Here’s more on energy committee musical chairs, from a post I wrote last week.