Led by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee will easily approve the Energy Tax Prevention Act this week.

The measure would prohibit EPA from regulating or even thinking about climate change regulations. It would overturn EPA’s GHG emission reporting rule and EPA’s so-called Tailoring Rule, which requires the very largest sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when they rebuild, repair or refurbish their facilities.

Technically, the committees met during markup sessions to consider amendments to Upton’s bill. But there was no attempt to negotiate terms.

Republicans repeatedly questioned the science used to support EPA’s climate change regulation, despite thousands of confirmatory reports from scientists all around the world. Democrats challenged Republicans to produce any peer-reviewed scientific report that doubts climate change is real. None was produced or even referred to by the global warming skeptics.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) typified much of the Republican argument, claiming that CO2 can’t be considered a pollutant because it’s also a naturally occurring gas. Republicans also worried about possible job losses due to regulation, and they repeatedly claimed that EPA is using the Clean Air Act to illegally regulate GHGs.

Democrats defending EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), were left squirming in their committee seats as Republicans joyfully reveled in their new role as the majority party in power. Upton’s bill (H.R. 910) easily cleared the energy and power panel and Upton’s full committee on voice votes.

Barton at one point gloated over Republican strength compared to House Democrats’ new role as a powerless minority.

Democrats repeatedly countered that the U.S. Supreme Court clearly gave EPA the green light to regulate and that even President George Bush had admitted that EPA had the power under the air law to regulate. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) summed up the Democratic frustration. Upton’s bill reveals the “striking arrogance for politicians to repeal a scientific finding” that climate change is real, man-made and occurring now at a rapid rate, Engel said.

H.R. 910 will next go to the House floor where it is expected to win quick and overwhelming approval.

Then, it will go to the Senate, where Democrats are still in charge. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), who believes global warming is a hoax, is a co-sponsor of Upton’s stop-EPA bill and will lead the fight in the Senate.

The group now calls for immediate action to raise the price of carbon in any fuel, preferably through a mix of carbon taxes and a national cap-and-trade program. NAS says the goal of any U.S. energy policy must be to make fossil fuels much more expensive now so that alternative and renewable fuels will become economically viable.

Lesson to business: Find ways to significantly improve energy efficiency, because if the NAS advice is followed, energy and fuel prices should be rising dramatically. One solution: Shop for clean energy suppliers — solar, wind, and nuclear.

Companies may also want to start planning to move inland and away from the coasts. The NAS 860-page analysis predicts that sea levels will rise by two to four feet by 2050 and by five feet by 2100. And don’t move to the Southwest. Water shortage problems in this area will intensify there due to changing weather patterns.

Jacking up energy prices is the only way to wean America off reliance on coal and imported petroleum fuels, NAS says in one of three reports, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, released last week.

Forcing America to reduce GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 would just be the start of the climate change campaign and the sooner, the better. NAS notes that the longer it takes to adopt a GHG reduction plan for America, the more expensive it will be in later years.

The elite scientists releasing their report say that without a doubt, “climate change is occurring, the Earth is warming … and there are very clear fingerprints” that human activities are the leading cause of the overloading of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. It’s the CO2 buildup that’s causing most of the climate change.

Meanwhile, both the national weather and space agencies reported last week that 2009 was the warmest year in human history.

There will be job losses once the U.S. really starts controlling climate-change emissions, the government now admits.

The energy sector will be hardest hit, especially coal mining jobs, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

A new CBO analysis predicts that coal mining jobs will be hardest hit by any action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions because coal-fired power plants by far release the greatest amount of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary GHG said to be the major causes of global warming. CBO expects demand for coal to drop as America moves to reduce fossil fuel emissions that cause global warming.

The process of regulating coal-fired power plants gets underway next year. EPA just issued Clean Air Act rules that require utilities to reduce CO2 emissions.

One thing that might save coal mining jobs is if the industry were to develop clean coal technology that could somehow cheaply capture and store CO2 emissions.

The oil and gas production industry would also see some job losses as prices for gasoline and diesel increase. This might dampen demand as companies and commuters seek out more fuel efficient vehicles.

The natural gas industry may escape job losses and may even see some additions because some utilities have the option to switch from dirty coal to natural gas, which is much cleaner in terms of GHG emissions.

Energy-intensive industries might also be at risk of losing a few jobs because they’d be wrestling with higher energy costs, which would force some belt tightening. Industries in this group include metals, nonmetallic minerals (like glass), chemicals and transportation services.

The costs: Companies will likely have to deal with greenhouse gas (GHG) emission controls and energy efficiency mandates.

Reason: BP’s oil spill could easily kill any chance that Congress will approve a climate change bill that would severely restrict EPA’s ability to impose global warming restrictions.

Prior to the spill, President Obama had joined the, “Drill, Baby, Drill” chorus. He had endorsed offshore drilling in pending Senate climate change legislation in exchange for a GHG emission cap-and-trade program.

But the BP spill forced Obama to back off his “drill now” harmony until lengthy and complicated investigations reveal why the oil rig exploded, killed 11 workers and created the massive oil spill that now threatens to inundate fisheries and coastal areas in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. This could get even worse. Unless the oil spill is plugged and contained quickly, there are fears the slick will round the southern tip of Florida and work its way up the East Coast.

There’s no way all this investigating will be completed before this fall’s elections, so that puts the kibosh on prospects for a climate change/energy bill.

One thing’s for certain, there will be tighter safety and environmental regulations for future offshore exploration projects.

BP’s penchant for accidents came to light after a 2005 explosion at its Texas City refinery killed 15 workers. As reported in Safety News Alert, the Chemical Safety Board concluded that BP’s targeted budget cuts of 25 percent in 1999 and another 25 percent in 2005 left much of the refinery’s infrastructure and process equipment in disrepair and vulnerable to a catastrophe. Also, operator training and staffing were downsized, the board said.

The problem facing factories, power plants and eventually small businesses is that if Congress fails to adopt some sort of climate change bill, EPA will regulate GHG emissions, starting with carbon dioxide.

Key point: The Obama administration is willing to limit EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs in exchange for creating a national cap-and-trade emission system that reduces climate changing pollutant releases.

But this limit on EPA is contingent on getting a cap-and-trade program adopted — this year — and before the 2010 election season kicks in.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has been working with Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) to write a Senate bill that would replace EPA regulations with a limited cap-and-trade program. The tri-partisan bill would also promote offshore oil and natural gas exploration and new nuclear power plant constructions. Details were supposed to have been revealed April 26.

The widely expected new Senate proposal was so expected that EPA chief Lisa Jackson was booked on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart to discuss the new approach.

However, the sudden spike in interest to revive the immigration debate might have killed momentum for the Graham/Kerry/Lieberman plan.

Graham was so annoyed that the Obama administration is giving immigration a higher priority than climate change legislation, that he pulled out of the cap-and-trade negotiation. That left Jackson and Stewart with nothing to discuss.

However, Jackson did reiterate that the administration’s key goal is to establish a price on carbon.

One way or another, energy costs will be rising again for businesses, even if the economy takes its sweet old time recovering from the 2008 meltdown.

It’s this grim reality that prompted energy research firm Verdantix to warn corporate boardrooms to develop and implement comprehensive energy-efficiency strategies — now.

These efficiency plans should include projects ranging from upgrading lighting systems at facilities to investing in voltage power optimization projects to maximize the energy efficiency of entire building systems.

After interviewing a variety of financial execs, Verdantix predicts in The Energy Efficiency Imperative: why CFOs Need a Financial Strategy for Energy and Carbon that oil and electricity prices will soar due to:

1. hidden costs of carbon (i.e., burning fossil fuels)
2. oil and gas supply disruptions
3. costs of climate change compliance, and
4. investors’ demands for full disclosure of energy risk exposures.

For example, the report warns that energy analysts predict that oil prices will range from $80 to $100 a barrel by year’s end and that oil exporting countries expect to get up to $150 a barrel of crude in the years just ahead.

Plus, electricity prices are expected to quadruple from the lows of 2009 as greenhouse gas (GHG) cap-and-trade programs take effect around the world.

The U.S. has yet to enact similar legislation, but the Obama administration and many in Congress are still pushing a cap-and-trade program that would mandate a 17% cut in GHG releases by 2020 in exchange for building new nuclear power plants and expanding offshore drilling for oil and gas supplies.

EPA has formally decided it’s OK to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs. This March 29 announcement first affects the largest industrial facilities and power plants as Clean Air Act permit applications and renewals are approved next year.

There are no grandfathering provisions. Companies that get their prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V permits approved this year won’t have to control GHGs.  All PSD and Title V permits approved after the rules take effect in 2011 will include GHG emission restrictions, even those already in the pipeline.

Some of these restrictions could be requirements to install more efficient equipment as a means to reduce power demand at a facility, which in turn reduces GHG emissions.

For example, a facility that burns coal could be required to switch to natural gas. Or a company could be asked to install more efficient boilers or perhaps switch to more efficient electric motors, which will reduce demand for electricity created by coal-fired power plants.

The earliest theoretical date that factories would have to start controlling GHG emissions would be Jan. 2, 2011 — assuming that’s the date that the final rule limiting GHG emissions from cars and trucks takes effect.

The first facilities to face regulation will be those emitting more than 50,000 or even 75,000 metric tons of GHGs a year.  EPA will let you know later this summer. Smaller facilities will face regulation as EPA expands the GHG regulatory program after 2013.

The only good news is minor. EPA says nobody will be regulated in 2010. That’s it.

Instead, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson is on the offensive, defending her agency’s plans to regulate GHG emission from cars, trucks, factories and eventually, small businesses. Her message: Environmental rules spark innovation and create jobs.

She bluntly warned that current efforts in Congress to thwart EPA plans are short-sighted and worse, anti-job.

Jackson’s fighting efforts to stop her agency from regulating GHGs. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has rounded up 40 co-sponsors of a resolution seeking to block EPA. Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) is trying to delay EPA action for a year or two. Similar actions are pending in the House.

But Jackson thinks these are wrongheaded ideas. “At no point in our history has any problem been solved by ‘waiting another year to act’ or burying our heads in the sand,” she said during a National Press Club address March 8, clearly channeling Tom Petty’s country-rock hit, “I Won’t Back Down.” She urged these politicians to work on a productive energy policy that prepares America for a carbon-regulated world.

She has plenty of history to back up her claim that environmental rules pay off. In the past 30 years, EPA rules have reduced major air pollutant emissions by 54%.

Yet at the same time, Jackson pointed out, America’s economy grew by 126%, even as “more cars went on the road, more power plants went on line and more buildings went up.” Environmental rules are a win/win proposition, she said, because they spark investment and innovation, and that creates jobs and a cleaner and healthier environment.

Rather than stick their heads in the sand and hope global warming goes away, politicians and business leaders, Jackson says, should recognize that, worldwide, consumers are demanding green products.

“Companies must respond to parents who refuse to buy bottles with BPA in them, or that leech dangerous chemicals into drinking water. Industry can try to resist and ignore EPA, but I know — and they know — that they resist the forces of the green marketplace at their own peril.”

However, all the heat EPA’s been taking over pending GHG rules has pushed the agency to moderate its plans. Jackson recently said EPA will initially target only the very largest facilities. EPA’s planning to set the regulatory GHG threshold to 75,000 or even 100,000 tons per year (tpy). These power plants and large industrial facilities would see rules in 2011: direct emission control mandates under the Clean Air Act, not an emission cap-and-trade program.

Facilities emitting 50,000 tpy would see regulation in 2013. It’s not clear just when EPA would regulate small facilities.

Instead of forcing the whole country to share in the pain of dealing with climate change, three Senators think they have a better idea, one that could actually win Senate approval. A new climate change bill from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will target:

• coal-fired power plants
• industrial facilities, and
• transportation.

The heart of this cap-and-trade replacement plan is still to jack up prices for energy generated from fossil fuels. Reason: Higher prices for coal-fired electricity are critical to making wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and nuclear energy commercially viable.

The Senate trio is trying to pitch their new legislation to make American energy independent because, as Sen. Graham told the New York Times, “We are more dependent on foreign oil today than after 9/11.”

Coal-fired power plants will be the first targets of the Graham/Kerry/Lieberman plan. They’d face a GHG emissions cap that would be gradually tightened over time. No details yet on how, or even if, there would be any GHG emission credit allowances given or sold to power plants.

Some years after power plants are regulated, the bill would phase in GHG emission reduction mandates for industrial facilities — such as oil refineries, chemical plants, and pulp and paper mills.

Gasoline and diesel fuels would be hit with a carbon tax to generate revenue the government would then use to subsidize highway projects and electric-car infrastructure, and to defray costs for those hardest hit by higher electric bills.

The feds would also use revenue collected from these carbon taxes to fund alternative energy projects, particularly nuclear energy, as well as carbon capture and storage technologies.

Why is Sen. Graham so interested in alternative energy projects? Clean energy projects mean jobs and a future in South Carolina. General Electric builds all of its wind turbines in Greenville. Graham is also promoting his state as a home for manufacturing nuclear energy and biomass technologies.

That’s the big surprise EPA has in store for business and industry when it issues its first global warming regulations this spring. EPA chief Lisa Jackson has just revealed her schedule for who faces GHG regulation and when.

The only good news: Nobody will have to reduce GHG emissions in 2010.

But that changes in 2011. In the first half of next year, EPA will regulate 400 of the largest industrial facilities and power plants as they reapply for their Clean Air Act permits. This list expands to cover 13,000 facilities that release more than 25,000 tons per year of GHGs between 2011 and 2013.

However, EPA also plans to regulate medium and small businesses starting in 2016. According to the Small Business Administration’s analysis of EPA’s regulatory plans, more than six million small companies will be regulated.

Jackson revealed her agency’s regulatory timetable in a letter to coal-state Senators who are pressing EPA to ease its GHG regulatory plans. The only reassurance Jackson had for the Senators was that her agency will mandate cost-effective GHG controls as the agency rolls out its grand plan to limit climate change emissions.

Jackson also made it clear that the Obama Administration will use the Clean Air Act to regulate GHG emissions. The only way to stop EPA is for Congress to develop the emission cap-and-trade program, Jackson explained in Feb. 23 letter to the Senators, because the Supreme Court has ruled that GHGs are air pollutants and must be regulated.

Jackson also emphasized that a national climate change regulatory program would be better for companies. Otherwise, she pointed out, California and at least 13 other states will develop their own, conflicting GHG regulatory plans.