David Porter: Obama a ‘Mouthpiece for Propaganda’

Officials Voice Opposition for the Clean Air Act
Methane Emissions Safety

RRC’s Porter Challenges Clean Air Act

Railroad Commission Chairman David Porter joined officials from several energy states to voice their opposition to the EPA’s clean air act.

Related: EPA: Tougher Methane Emissions Approved

Porter testified before the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce last week, strongly urging lawmakers to prevent the Obama administration from continuing to assume unconstitutional powers and adding obtrusive regulations on the states.

Porter made a case that the constrictions of the Clean Air Act are onerous, unnecessary and overreaching.

David Porter testified that, “The underlying themes in EPA rulemaking under the Obama Administration have been the consolidation of increased regulatory power in the Federal Government to the detriment of State authority, and the circumvention of the regulatory authority granted to EPA by Congress.” He went on to say that “The President disregards the Constitutional limits of his office and public opinion to forward his own liberal agenda that combats fossil fuels and favors unreliable and costly alternative energy sources. In promoting this agenda, he has allowed EPA to become the mouthpiece for ideological propaganda.”

Last summer, President Obama revealed a plan designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions 40 – 45 percent by 2025. After almost a year, the EPA finalized the new rule in May that sets standards for methane leaks along the natural gas production line.

The new standards are stronger than those proposed last summer and look to reduce 520,000 short tons of methane in 2025 instead of 400,000 in the original proposal. This is equivalent of 11 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.

In his testimony, David Porter shared his concerns about the how the Clean Air Act was conceived, claiming:

  • Minimal interaction and consultation with Texas and other State regulatory authorities
  • Underestimated or ignored compliance costs
  • Overestimated, unjustified and exaggerated regulatory and environmental benefits
  • Increased regulatory and economic burden on operating companies, particularly the smaller operators who make up an overwhelming majority of the industry in Texas
  • Creation of “one-size-fits-all” regulations that ignore the significant differences in regional operating conditions and State regulatory systems

Others who testified included Lynn Helms, director of the Oil and Gas Division of the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources and Travis Kavulla, Vice-Chairman of the Montana Public Service Commission.

Read Porter’s full testimony here.


The following two tabs change content below.
Elizabeth Alford

Elizabeth Alford

Elizabeth Alford writes on significant news developments in the Eagle Ford oil and gas play taking place across South TX. She is a freelance writer with an extensive communications, PR, and staff writing background.
Elizabeth Alford

Latest posts by Elizabeth Alford (see all)