The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) opposes S. 2657, the package of energy bills set for a vote today in the U.S. Senate, and urges senators to vote against the bill and a number of expected amendments.
Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment Myron Ebell said:
“CEI urges Senators to vote no on S. 2657, a grab-bag of over fifty separate bills containing little of merit and even less that is innovative. It will create a number of unnecessary new programs and offices and waste billions of taxpayer dollars.
“And the bill will only get worse as it moves through the Senate and House. It will be a vehicle for members to attach all sorts of giveaways for special interests, including expanded tax credits for unpopular electric vehicles and technologies insufficient to meet Americans’ energy needs. One of the worst amendments would provide guaranteed funding for endless federal acquisition of private land and another would raise the cost of air conditioning in our homes and cars.”
Additionally, CEI Senior Fellow Ben Lieberman released the following statement opposing attempts to include the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act (AIM) (S.2754 and H.R.5544) as an amendment to this package:
“Hot weather is just around the corner, and the last thing home and car owners need is another federal mandate further boosting the cost of air conditioning. This legislation targets the refrigerants currently used in most air conditioners and refrigerators on the grounds that they contribute to climate change. But restricting those refrigerants will raise both the cost of repairing existing systems and purchasing new ones. This would be great news for companies like Honeywell that have patented a number of substitute refrigerants likely to spike in price should this amendment become law. But those companies will gain at the expense of millions of consumers trying to stay cool this summer and into the future.”
For more information, see Senior Fellow Ben Lieberman’s recent testimony before the House Commerce Committee on this issue and his related analysis: The American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act: Myth vs. Fact.