Big Oil subsidies have maintained a relatively low profile during fiscal showdown negotiations. But there is some chance the oil industry’s $4 billion annual subsidies could be on the chopping block in a deal. The first indication Republicans may possibly budge, after repeatedly blocking votes on the issue, came late in the election when House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) said, “Let’s look at the oil and gas subsidies, let’s take them away. Let’s let them compete just like everyone else at the same level.”

Like many of his GOP colleagues, the oil and gas industry is one of Upton’s top industry donors. He has received nearly $450,000 from the oil and gas industry over his career in the House, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Interestingly, when Upton said he would look at oil subsidies, Big Oil sent last-minute contributions to the candidate. New campaign filings show that since Upton made his comment early in October, he received several new donations from oil companies:

– ExxonMobil PAC gave $5,000 on 10/23, bringing its total for Upton this cycle to $10,000.
– Valero Energy gave $5,000 on 10/24.
– Petroleum Marketers Association of Americas gave $4,000 on 11/5.
– Marathon Oil COO Dave E. Roberts gave $2,500 on 10/29.
– ConocoPhillips PAC gave $1,000 on 11/5, bringing its cycle total to $8,000.

Upton’s leadership PAC raised another $47,000 from the oil and gas industry this cycle, drawing $25,000 from Valero Energy and $10,000 from Koch Industries, among other oil and gas companies. Overall, he raised $4 million and spent more than $4.5 million to defeat his challenger Mike O’Brien.

There are a few clues indicating how seriously to take Upton on ending oil subsidies: Post-election, Upton hired America’s Natural Gas Alliance lobbyist Tom Hassenboehler as a senior aide, who has also served as counsel for the Senate’s infamous climate denier James Inhofe (R-OK). And polluter groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce also campaigned on Upton’s behalf, touting his record of protecting Big Oil and its tax breaks.

In a letter to the White House Office of Management and Budget, top House Republicans demanded the long-delayed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation for greenhouse gas pollution for very large emitters be killed. House energy committee chair Fred Upton (R-MI), former chair Joe Barton (R-TX), and energy and power subcommittee chair Ed Whitfield (R-KY) asked OMB acting director Jeffrey Zients to stay EPA’s regulation of new and modified power plants that produce more than 100,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide pollution:

We understand that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is currently reviewing the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from new and modified power plants through the New Source Performance Standards program. We write to request that you withhold the regulation from issuance. We are concerned about the regulation’s impact on jobs and the economy, and that it will not comply with all applicable Executive Orders, including the President’s Executive Order 13563 and its predecessor, Executive Order 12866.

“Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation,” begins Obama’s Executive Order 13563. “It must be based on the best available science.”

The EPA rule is the long-delayed result of a suit brought against the George W. Bush administration by several states in 2003, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2007 that the EPA had the authority to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The Bush White House then blocked the efforts by the EPA to comply with the law, and the Obama administration has slowly rolled out a watered-down rule that won’t reach full implementation until 2016. Scientists have warned that the United States needs to rapidly reduce its carbon pollution no later than 2015 for human civilization to have a reasonable shot at maintaining a safe climate, based on the best available science.

However, in the fantasy world of Upton, Barton, and Whitfield, global warming doesn’t exist — so even the EPA’s soft limits on carbon pollution are a “back door cap-and-trade regime” that will “burden struggling businesses and families,” instead of one of the most important accomplishments of Obama administration to protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.

Electric utilities are the top contributors this cycle to Upton, Barton, and Whitfield. During this campaign cycle alone, the letter’s authors have received a combined $431,550 from electric power companies.

Download the anti-climate letter from Upton, Barton, and Whitfield to the OMB.

At today’s House hearing on the Solyndra loan guarantee, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton questioned Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the decision to approve financial backing of the now-bankrupt solar manufacturer.

Upton lamented the “red flags” that outside parties were raising about the viability of Solyndra in 2009 when the loan guarantee was issued, wondering if those concerns were “either ignored or minimized by senior officials.”

However, during the exact same time period when the Solyndra loan guarantee was being reviewed, Upton asked the DOE to approve a loan guarantee to a Michigan-based solar manufacturer — just months after the company stopped production at its plant and two weeks after announcing it would lay off 400 workers. The company, Uni-Solar, manufactures flexible amorphous-silicon thin film solar materials that be applied to a variety of surfaces.

The Washington Post reports on Upton’s letter to the DOE, co-written with a bi-partisan group of lawmakers, which asked the agency to consider backing Uni-Solar, even while its parent company, Energy Conversion Devices, was publicly facing problems:

Read more