McKinley Pushes Back Against “Rush to Green”
McKinley Focuses on Job Loss, Impact on Communities at Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on Legislation That Will Destroy Coal, Natural Gas
Washington, March 18, 2021
Tags: Energy & Environment
WASHINGTON D.C. – Today Congressman David B. McKinley, P.E. (R-W.Va.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Climate Change, focused on job loss, high utility bills, and the instability of the national energy grid that would result from Democrat’s energy agenda. During a hearing on the CLEAN Future Act, which aims to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, McKinley pushed back on the legislation stating:
“The goal of the act is to decarbonize the U.S. Economy by 2050, have net-zero emissions from power plants by 2035, 80% by 2030. In so doing all we’re gonna do is destroy livelihoods, disrupt families, decimate communities, increase utility bills, threaten the stability of the grid, and we will still experience negative effects of climate change since the rest of the world isn’t following suit. Look, Mr. Chairman we agree we need to work to reduce carbon emissions, but we also need to understand the consequences before we rush into such a punitive action. Let’s keep in mind, last year 60% of our power came from fossil fuels: coal, gas and oil.”
During his five minutes of questioning, McKinley highlighted several flaws in the CLEAN Future Act. The CLEAN Future Act places restrictions on new developments of petrochemical and plastic manufacturing which is vital to the economy in Appalachia. McKinley focused on the role of manufacturers in developing PPE like masks, gloves, and shields:
MCKINLEY: “If the current manufacturers were unable to meet the demand last year and the year before, wouldn’t it make more sense to make more facilities, have more facilities to produce more masks, gowns, shields?
SUNDAY: “Yes we should have a streamlined permit process to accommodate that type of dynamic market.”
MCKINLEY: “It’s fundamental here. Now so you turn to section 902 of this bill, it withholds permits, new permits from facilities that would produce plastics or the raw materials used to produce plastics. Could this section therefore prevent the opening of new petrochemical complex north of Pittsburgh, in Monaca Pennsylvania, or the one being planned in Eastern Ohio?
SUNDAY: “Yes I believe that language would jeopardize future investments into those types of facilities.”
MCKINLEY: “So seriously, we just experienced a shortage of PPE and this bill calls for more restrictions on the plastics industry.”