Good Morning Everyone,

Below is the email sent to Shahra Anderson, Senator Nelsons Regional
Director!  She is working on a response from the Senator. I will update you
as soon as I hear from them.

Respectfully,

David Lambert

Ms. Anderson,

Senator McConnell has an amendment to the small business program
reauthorization bill trying to preempt the EPA's use of the Clean Air Act to
regulate CO2 as a greenhouse gas.  If Co2 were regulated by the EPA as a
pollutant it would increase electric costs to our members and all of the
people of Florida.   It is our understanding that Senator Nelson does not
support the McConnell amendment and we would like to ask him to support it
or give us a reason why he will not.

This issue is a very important to Florida's not-for-profit Electric
Cooperatives.  Our wholesale power provider Seminole has one of the largest
portfolios of renewable in the state (approximately 5%).  Seminole recently
upgraded their two coal fired generators at a cost of 300 million to make
these plants some of the cleanest in the country.

In the wake of the natural disaster in Japan it will definitely be more
difficult to build nuclear facilities in this country.  This was one of the
top viable options to meet our nations growing energy needs and lower Co2
emissions.  Electric Cooperatives in Florida have aggressive campaigns to
educate and reduce our member's energy use.

We firmly believe just as John Dingell from Michigan stated "The EPA'S
regulation of Co2 as a greenhouse gas would create a glorious mess."  The
McConnell amendment will bar the EPA from regulating Co2 and place it in the
hands of Congress.  Electric cooperatives are leaders in renewable energy
and energy efficiency and will gladly work with Congress on an affordable
achievable energy option.

We look forward to the Senators response this will likely be voted on
tomorrow.

Respectfully,

David Lambert

Manager, Member Relations

Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative, Inc

P.O. Box 278

Dade City, Fl 33526-0278

PH: 352-567-5133 Ext: 6102

David Lambert
Manager, Member Relations
Withlacoochee River Electric Cooperative, Inc
P.O. Box 278
Dade City, Fl 33526-0278
PH: 352-567-5133 Ext: 6102

-----Original Message-----
From: list-manager@feca.simplelists.com
[mailto:list-manager@feca.simplelists.com] On Behalf Of Bill Willingham
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2011 9:20 AM
To: member-services@feca.simplelists.com; 'Bill Mulcay'; 'Bill Rimes'; 'Bill
Rimes'; 'Billy Brown'; 'Clay Campbell'; 'Gary Smith'; 'Jim Duncan'; 'John
Hewa'; 'John Martz'; 'John Middleton'; 'Julius Hackett'; 'Leigh Grantham';
'Michael White'; 'Mike Campbell'; 'Ricky Davis'; 'Scott Newberry'; 'Tim
Woodbury'; 'Tommy Todd'
Subject: EPA budget bill

The Senate Republicans are trying to preempt EPA's use of the Clean Air Act
to regulate CO2.  Rubio is on board but Nelson is not.  Please call all of
your Nelson contacts and let them know that we support Sen. McConnell's
floor amendment to the small business program reauthorization bill that
would block greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.  Please let
me know if you make contact, who you spoke with,  and what their response
was.  Thanks.

MARCH 28, 2011

The Senate's EPA Showdown

Democrats face a moment of truth on regulatory cap and trade.

The Environmental Protection Agency debate lands in the Senate this week,
amid the makings of a left-right coalition to mitigate the agency's abuses.
Few other votes this year could do more to help the private economy-but only
if enough Democrats are willing to buck the White House.

This moment arrived unexpectedly, with Majority Leader Harry Reid opening a
small business bill to amendments. Republican leader Mitch McConnell
promptly introduced a rider to strip the EPA of the carbon regulation
authority that the Obama Administration has given itself. Two weeks ago, Mr.
Reid pulled the bill from the floor once it became clear Mr. McConnell might
have the 13 Democrats he needs to clear 60.

The votes are now due as soon as tomorrow, and Mr. Reid is trying to attract
41 Democrats with a rival amendment from Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus.
The Baucus plan is a political veneer that would exempt some farms and
businesses from the EPA maw but at the cost of endorsing everything else.
The question for Democrats is whether their loyalties to President Obama and
EPA chief Lisa Jackson trump the larger economic good, not to mention
constituents already facing far higher energy costs.

The story of how we arrived at this pass begins in 1999, when Clinton EPA
chief Carol Browner floated the idea that carbon dioxide could be regulated
as a pollutant under the 1970 Clean Air Act and its later amendments. The
Bush Administration rejected Ms. Browner's theory, in part because Congress
kept rejecting statutory language to that effect.

Several states and green groups sued, and the question reached the Supreme
Court in 2006. With Massachusetts v. EPA, a 5-4 majority broadly rewrote the
definition of "pollutant," but it also narrowly held that "EPA no doubt has
significant latitude as to the manner, timing, content, and coordination of
its regulations" (our emphasis). In other words, the Court created new
powers via judicial invention but left their use to the discretion of the
executive branch.

The Obama Administration moved to exploit this power by threatening that the
EPA would make a carbon "endangerment finding" if Congress didn't pass a
climate bill. This threat was potent for the simple reason that the Clean
Air Act's intrusive command-and-control systems were never written or meant
to address an emission as ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. It's like trying to
perform surgery with a butter knife, and Mr. Obama hoped that the pain would
force industry to beg for cap and tax. The EPA went ahead with its
endangerment ruling, but cap and trade failed in the Senate last year
anyway.

The EPA now claims its carbon regulation is compelled by the Supreme Court,
as if Congress can't change the law, as well as by "science," as if Congress
is a potted plant. Someone even disinterred former Republican EPA
Administrators William Ruckelshaus and Christine Todd Whitman to claim in
the Washington Post last week that Congress would somehow be voting against
"environmental progress."

But a vote for the McConnell amendment, which would permanently bar the EPA
from regulating carbon unless Congress passed new legislation, is justified
on democratic prerogatives alone. Whatever one's views of Massachusetts v.
EPA or climate science, no elected representative has ever voted on an EPA
plan that has often involved the unilateral redrafting of plain-letter law.

A vote to overrule the EPA is also needed to remove the regulatory
uncertainty hanging over the economy. This harm is already apparent in
energy, where the EPA is trying to drive coal-fired power out of existence.
The core electricity generation that the country needs to meet future demand
is not being built, and it won't be until the EPA is bridled. This same
dynamic is also chilling the natural gas boom in the Northeast, and it is
making U.S. energy-intensive industries less competitive world-wide.

As the EPA screws tighten, the costs will be passed along to consumers, with
the same damage as a tax increase but none of the revenues. Eventually, the
EPA plan will appreciably lower the U.S. standard of living. Hardest hit
will be the middle-American regions that rely on coal or heavy industry,
though the EPA bulldozer will run over small businesses too. The Clean Air
Act, once the carbon doomsday machine has been activated, won't merely apply
to "major" sources of emissions like power plants or factories. Its reach
will include schools, farms, hospitals, restaurants, basically any large
building.

Which brings us to this week's Senate votes. Democrats to watch will be
Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), Tim Johnson (South Dakota),
Tom Carper (Delaware), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana), Kent Conrad (North
Dakota), Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota), Claire McCaskill (Missouri), Jim Webb
(Virginia), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow (Michigan)
and John Rockefeller and Joe Manchin (West Virginia). All of them have been
publicly critical of the EPA, and, not incidentally, most of them face a
tough re-election.

The White House and Mr. Reid will offer phony alternatives to keep 41
Democrats in the corral. The Baucus amendment is the classic Beltway trick
of trying to provide political cover while not solving the problem. Mr.
Rockefeller is sponsoring a two-year delay before the EPA rules take effect,
but that will merely defer the problem.

The McConnell amendment is one of the best proposals for growth and job
creation to make it onto the Senate docket in years. If Mr. Obama is intent
on defending the EPA's regulatory assault, then the least Senate Democrats
can do is force him to defend his choices himself.