A Democratic co-sponsor of the House bill aimed at clipping U.S. EPA's regulatory power isn't buying the Republican line that links the agency to higher gasoline prices.

Instead, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) blames commodities-market speculation.

"I don't blame EPA for the increase in the price of gas," Rahall said. "The speculators are driving that price up like crazy; that's the way it is and has been and unfortunately might always be."

Rahall, along with Reps. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.), has joined Republicans in support of the "Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011" (H.R. 910), which would bar EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy and Power Subcommittee approved the bill yesterday, sending it to the full Energy and Commerce Committee (Greenwire, March 10).

Also yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner and other leading Republicans announced their "American Energy Initiative" that among other actions calls for an end to EPA's authority over greenhouse gases.

Overall, the Obama administration's policies are chipping away at the economy, but EPA could cause even greater damage, the Ohio Republican said.

"If the White House has its way -- and the EPA imposes a backdoor national energy tax -- gas prices will only go higher," Boehner said.

Rahall said he broke ranks with his party to support the bill because it represents the best interests of his constituents. "The EPA is the worst three letters you could hear pronounced in my district," he said.

And while Rahall dismissed the Republican argument, he said he sees the bill getting stalled in the Senate and perhaps morphing into a measure there sponsored by another West Virginia Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller, that would clip EPA greenhouse gas regulations for two years.

"That's why I joined and co-sponsored it," Rahall said. "The two-year is better to pass the other body, maybe something gets into conference before everything is said and done."

Bill could fuel rising gas prices -- EPA chief

Meanwhile, following a House subcommittee hearing on the EPA budget this morning, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson defended her agency's authority against H.R. 910, which includes a provision barring the agency from regulating automobile emissions.

If EPA is barred from setting new vehicle rules, fuel prices could be driven up, Jackson said (Greenwire, March 11).

"The estimate is you lose about 25 percent of the fuel efficiency if you take EPA's Clean Air Act out of the equation," Jackson told reporters. "So it is a statement of fact that that bill, rather than help gas prices in any way, will make us more dependent on foreign oil."

Jackson also fielded questions about her 2009 statement that a comprehensive cap-and-trade bill for greenhouse gas emissions would be less costly to regulated industries than regulating emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Republicans have often pointed to that statement -- made in support of a cap-and-trade bill sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) -- to argue that Jackson believes EPA regulations will be expensive for power plants, oil refineries and other covered entities.

"Administrator Jackson has not said that carbon regulation would cost more than carbon legislation," EPA spokesman Brendan Gilfillan said. "What she actually said is that the reason we need comprehensive legislation to reduce carbon pollution is that only new legislation can efficiently achieve the magnitude of reductions that science tells us we need."

Reporters Jean Chemnick and Phil Taylor contributed.