On Friday, the Environmental Protection Agency unveiled its “Tier 3” rule to lower sulfer in gasoline by 2017 that critics said would make national gas prices go up like gas prices in California, a state already burdened by similar environmental regulations.
Daniel Simmons, of the American Energy Alliance, said the rule would cause gasoline prices to skyrocket nationally like they have in California.
“California already has these type of regulations which is part of the reason why California’s gasoline prices are 40 cents a gallon above the national average,” Simmons said. “The Tier 3 rule is one more example of the administration’s desire to increase energy prices for Americans. It is never ‘common sense’ to drive up gasoline prices when so many Americans are struggling to make ends meet.”
As The Hill notes, “the new requirements for vehicles and fuels include a mandate that refiners cut the sulfur content of gasoline by more than 60 percent to 10 parts per million in 2017.” The rule is intended to “improve the performance of catalytic converters.”
The American Petroleum Institute (API) argued “the measure will increase the cost of gasoline production by up to nine cents per gallon, for little benefit” while the Obama administration said gas prices would increase by one cent per gallon.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) said that “increases in gas prices disproportionately hurt the nation’s most vulnerable individuals and families,” and the Obama Administration could not be more “out of touch” with the concerns average Americans.
The Hill noted Gina McCarthy, the “EPA’s top air quality official,” will be grilled on this rule when the Senate holds hearings on her nomination to lead the EPA.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), the top Republican on the committee (Environment and Public Works) responsible for McCarthy’s nomination, said the new rule signaled a “frightening flood of new rules under the potential Gina McCarthy-led EPA and represents one of a litany of likely regulations that require transparency to justify both the costs and the benefits.”