byers, dan GEI

==

what role in fork? thanx kathie? he was in 2nd term?

Office of Science & Technology

Associate Director for Science

Office of Science & Technology

2002 - 2005 3 years

got tony cox SAB gig

https://www.uschamber.com/dan-byers

off bs

Byers is vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Energy Institute with a focus on environmental and regulatory issues, Byers develops and implements strategies in support of the Institutes broader education and advocacy efforts. Byers brings nearly two decades of public policy experience to his work directing the Institute in assessing the impact of existing and emerging federal laws and regulations on the U.S. energy industry. He frequently speaks and writes on energy policy and environmental regulatory issues and has been published in a number of prominent outlets.

Before joining the Chamber, Byers was staff director of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee for the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Byers work on the subcommittee focused on revitalizing oversight of EPA, including development and execution of strategies to reform and improve the agency’s regulatory science activities.

During the second term of the George W. Bush administration, Byers served as deputy to the associate director for technology at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), where he oversaw policy development and coordination associated with a broad suite of technology issues. From 2007 to 2009, he also worked for the White House National Economic Council, leading the development and coordination of telecommunications policy for the Bush administration. Previously, Byers held a variety of positions in the House of Representatives, including staff director of the House Science Committee Subcommittee on Research from 2003–2005. He began his career on Capitol Hill in 2000 in the office of Congressman Nick Smith (R-MI).

Byers holds an M.S. in soil science from North Carolina State University and a B.S. in crop and soil environmental sciences from Virginia Tech. He lives in Fairfax, Virginia, with his wife and two sons.

Author

Collateral Damage: 20 Energy-Related Reforms Impacted by the Government Shutdown

Dan Byers Friday, January 18, 2019 - 9:00am

bloomberg_corpuschristi_oil_rig_800px.jpg

An oil pump jack near Corpus Christi, Texas.

With EPA, Interior, and even parts of the White House on an extended leave, work on these reforms has ground to a halt.

Seven Ways EPA’s Affordable Clean Energy Rule is a Better Approach than the Clean Power Plan

Dan ByersWednesday, August 22, 2018 - 10:00am

022403_istk91714253_energydiversity_atf_1600x1066.jpg

Electricity tower

The Chamber and its allies look forward to a detailed review and comment of the EPA's new CPP rule.

Energy policy in Trump era bodes well for Americans and business

Dan Byers Friday, January 26, 2018 - 10:00am

At a Bismarck, North Dakota, speech in May 2016, then candidate Donald Trump outlined his “America First Energy Plan,” an ambitious, reform-focused agenda that declared U.S.

EPA Can't Rely on a 'Catch Me If You Can' Strategy for the Clean Power Plan

Dan ByersThursday, March 3, 2016 - 12:00pm

catch_me_if_you_can_movie_shot_1600px.jpg

Leonardo Dicaprio walking with flight attendants in the movie Catch Me If You Can.

EPA must honor the extended deadline requirements inherent in the Supreme Court's stay decision.

Governor Pence: Indiana Will Not Cede Control of its Electricity System to EPA

Dan ByersThursday, June 25, 2015 - 2:00pm

editm1221938.jpg

Indiana became one of the first states to officially inform the Obama administration that it does not plan to go along with EPA’s power plant carbon regulations.

Governors to EPA: Carbon Regulations Aren’t Practical

Dan ByersWednesday, September 10, 2014 - 12:45pm

bloomberg_smokestack_wv_800px.jpg

smoke stack

Governors, Attorneys General, air regulators, and utility commissioners are all calling on EPA to make major changes to its proposal.

3 Misconceptions Regarding EPA Regulation of Greenhouse Gases

Dan ByersMonday, February 10, 2014 - 2:00pm

00_EPA_building_800x533.png

Think the EPA's agenda is focused only on coal? This and other misconceptions are confusing the debate on regulation of carbon emissions.

Hill Zeroes in On Climate Action Plan Challenged by Chambers

Dan ByersMonday, January 13, 2014 - 5:45pm

Bloomberg_Capitol_Dome_12122013_800px.png

U.S. Capitol Dome

Last summer, President Obama unveiled his Climate Action Plan, an aggressive, regulatory-focused agenda to control greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from industry. Both houses of Congress will take up aspects of the plan as they return to work this week: the House in an Energy and Commerce Committee markup of legislation addressing power plant regulations, and the Senate in a Thursday

Dan Byers, Vice President of Policy for Institute for 21st Century Energy at U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Byers, who formerly worked for the George W. Bush White House, opened his talk by lamenting what he argued were false talking points about the energy industry, which he said “grinds my gears.” His current employer, the Institute for 21st Century Energy, is outspoken against environmental litigation, supports oil exports, and serves as Big Business' main collective voice on energy issues in the U.S.

Since Trump won, publications have run pieces saying that “Trump can’t help coal,” lamented Byers. Arguing that the narrative is “nonsense,” Byers posited that coal production would plummet by a factor of 30% if Clinton had won. Trump on the contrary, while he might not be able to turn the U.S. into a coal superpower, can “help coal country a lot.”

The Paris climate agreement came up too, and Byers argued that it disproportionately hurts the U.S. while the rest of the world gets to partake in “business as usual.” Byers also claimed that coal is “good for the public health of the people of India and their wellbeing” and bashed the Keep It In the Ground movement, which his group has chided in the past.

“I think [Keep It In The Ground is] going to fail because it’s so intellectually indefensible, and it’s partly because of the hypocrisy,” said Byers.

gwu dereg

https://www.citizen.org/wp-content/uploads/A-Key-Cog-in-Charles-Kochs-Master-Plan-3.pdf

...

D. The Trump administration has appointed a RSC scholar to key science panels Louis Anthony (Tony) Cox Jr. is listed as a scholar for the RSC. 195 In 2015, Cox submitted a comment under the auspices of the RSC criticizing the EPA’s proposed air quality standard on ozone as unwarranted.196 Cox disclosed in a December 2016 letter to the editor of a journal that his consulting firm, Cox Associates, had over the previous three years: received funding from the American Petroleum Institute and the American Chemistry Council and their members and from the Regulatory Studies Center at George Washington University, to investigate methods and to develop software for improved causal analytics for use in health effects research, including the health effects of crystalline silica, ozone, and fine particulate matter.197 [emphasis added]

Cox was appointed in November 2017 as chair of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), which was established by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977.198

BYERS:

Cox was nominated to the position by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is a funder of the RSC. 199 Cox also was appointed to serve on the EPA’s Science Advisory Board,200 the duties of which include reviewing the quality and relevance of the scientific and technical information being used by the EPA or proposed as the basis for Agency regulations.201 Getting one of its scholars appointed to lead one of the EPA’s most important science panels and as a member of another must represent a win for the RSC.

E. The Trump administration enacted the RSC’s call for a “regulatory budget” At least as early as 2011, Dudley began touting the idea of a “regulatory budget,” or “regulatory PAYGO,” which would require agencies to eliminate a regulation of equivalent significance for every new regulation they issue.202 While the idea of a regulatory budget was proposed decades ago, it had mostly been dormant until recently. Dudley published an article discussing this proposal in 2016 in the N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation and Public Policy. 203

Weeks before the 2016 election, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pledged that he would eliminate two regulations for every one created.204 In December 2016, during the President elect Trump’s transition period, RSC Professor Marcus Peacock issued a white paper outlining options to enact this proposal.205 Trump issued an executive order 10 days into his presidency stipulating that two regulations should be eliminated for every one issued.206 (As mentioned earlier, Public Citizen sued over that executive order.) 198

Members of the Science Advisory Board, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (viewed on March 1, 2019), http://bit.ly/2NFwTAI; Request for Nominations of Candidates to the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB), A Notice by the Environmental Protection Agency, FEDERAL REGISTER (June 27, 2017), http://bit.ly/2SBubgh; and Juliet Eilperin EPA’s new science advisers add more industry experts, conservatives to the mix, THE WASHINGTON POST (Nov. 4, 2017), https://wapo.st/2INa7I9. 199 Scott Waldman, EPA science adviser allowed industry g...

Partnership for a Better Energy Future

Partnership for a Better Energy Future is a coalition. The Company advocates for the interests of its members. Specifically focusing on environmental protection agency and greenhouse gas emissions.

ADDRESS

733, 10th Street NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20001 United States

PHONE

WEBSITE

www.betterenergyfuture.org

2015 testimony ~ccp

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP06/20150318/102896/HHRG-114-AP06-Wstate-ByersD-20150318.pdf

Partnership for a Better Energy Future, testimony to House Appropriations Committee, March 18, 2015

Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum, and members of the subcommittee: thank you

for the opportunity to testify today about the Environmental Protection Agency’s fiscal year

2016 budget request, and the proposed “Clean Power Plan” in particular. My name is Dan

Byers. I am senior director for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Institute for 21st

Century Energy. I’m appearing before you today on behalf of the Partnership for a Better

Energy Future (the Partnership), a coalition of business organizations representing over 80

percent of the U.S. economy.

Established in January 2014, the Partnership’s fundamental mission is to promote an “all-of-the-above”

energy strategy that ensures the continued availability of reliable and affordable

energy for American families and businesses.As of March 2015, the Partnership totals 177

members, which include national organizations as well as state and local associations in 36

different states. All are united by widespread concerns that the proposed rule—as well as

EPA’s broader GHG regulatory agenda—presents a significant threat to American jobs and the

economy.

Released in June 2014, EPA’s Clean Power Plan would require states to meet stringent carbon

dioxide emissions goals through a fundamental transformation of the generation, transmission,

distribution, and use of electricity in America. The rule is the centerpiece of President Obama’s

Climate Action Plan, and EPA has made clear that its development and promulgation is the

agency’s top budget and policy priority. Accordingly, the Partnership appreciates this

opportunity to communicate the business and industrial community’s concerns with EPA’s

proposal.

In short, the CPP is fundamentally incompatible with numerous practical and technical aspects

of America’s electricity system, and would represent a vast expansion of the agency’s

regulatory reach into the authority held by states and other federal regulatory agencies. The

Partnership urges the Subcommittee to ensure EPA addresses the following concerns and

develops a path forward that supports American jobs and the economy, maintains electric

reliability, and allows all energy sources to play a role in our energy future.

The U.S. Needs an All-of-the-Above Energy Strategy

Consumers of energy, whether they are large manufacturers or individual households, benefit

most from an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Diversity of energy supply is not only critical in

keeping energy costs reasonable, it is essential in ensuring steady and reliable streams of

energy to power our factories and heat our homes. For many U.S. businesses that compete in a

global economy, energy represents a major input cost that can ultimately determine viability.

Right now, energy is an advantage for many U.S. industries in large part because of the

abundant and diverse energy resources that are collectively providing reliable and affordable

energy supplies. However, if regulations such as the EPA’s CPP force energy options off the

The Partnership is co-chaired by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

For more information on Partnership members and activities, visit www.BetterEnergyFuture.org.

Partnership for a Better Energy Future, testimony to House Appropriations Committee, March 18, 2015

table, energy prices will become more volatile, costs will increase, reliability will be threatened

and U.S. firms will ultimately be less competitive.

The CPP Will Increase Energy Prices

The CPP threatens to cause serious harm to the U.S economy, raising energy prices and costing

jobs. EPA’s own estimates project that its rule will cause (inflation-adjusted) nationwide

electricity price increases of between 6 and 7 percent in 2020, and up to 12 percent in some

locations. EPA estimates annual compliance costs between $5.4 and $7.4 billion in 2020, rising

up to $8.8 billion in 2030. These are power sector compliance costs only, and do not capture

the subsequent adverse spillover impacts of higher rates on overall economic activity.

Other analyses show that the impacts on energy prices could be substantially higher. A study by

NERA Economic Consulting indicated that average U.S. electricity prices would increase by 12%

per year and the total costs of the rule could be between $366 billion to $479 billion over a 15

year timeframe.2...