Posts Tagged ‘EPA war on fossil energy’

The EPA’s War on America

Thursday, September 19th, 2013

Source: Warning Signs

The EPA Borg

The EPA Borg

By Alan Caruba

Among the targets to disable an enemy’s ability to wage war is their energy infrastructure. The destruction of the utilities that provide electricity or its ability to refine oil is critical to crippling a nation’s ability to function, based on the universal use of hydrocarbons such as coal, natural gas, and oil.

If an enemy was doing this to America we would go to war against it, but this is being done and the enemy is the government on which we depend to ensure the nation has the energy it needs to function and grow. Leading the war on America has been the Environmental Protection Agency, but it is joined by the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, and other agencies.

The Institute for Energy Research has estimated that the much of the government’s oil and gas that is technically recoverable is worth $128 trillion, about eight times our national debt. Our coal resources in the lower 48 states are estimated to be worth $22.5 trillion. (more…)

Vitter: Administration’s Commitment to Costly Energy Regulations Could Devastate Economy

Wednesday, June 26th, 2013

Source:  Senator Vitter

Senator Vitter

Senator Vitter

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, today made the following statement after President Barack Obama announced plans to implement costly new regulations on power plants.

“The pattern of behavior from this administration is to hide their true plans from the public and conduct business without transparency,” said Vitter. “Their plans, often developed in secret, result in job loss and added costs to taxpayers. In almost the same breath, he laid the groundwork to implement regulations akin to a carbon tax – which would frustrate economic recovery; and waivered on the Keystone pipeline – which would obviously be a huge job creator.”

In President Obama’s speech, he stated that the administration will be working closely with other countries to reduce and regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Vitter and EPW Republicans have long questioned the economics behind regulating businesses in the United States, while China, India, and Russia, some of the world’s largest carbon emitters, and do not show interest or willingness to do the same.

President Obama also hedged his support of the Keystone XL pipeline, saying, “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interests. Our national interest would be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”  Keystone is estimated to create over 20,000 direct jobs and over 100,000 indirect jobs through carrying nearly one million additional barrels per day of North American oil supplies to U.S. refineries. Vitter has continually urged President Obama and administration officials to move forward with Keystone XL.

Last week, White House energy advisor Heather Zichal said, “Going forward, obviously the EPA is going to be working very hard on rules that focus specifically on greenhouse gas emissions from the coal sector.  They’re doing a lot of important work in that space.”

Below are several questions that Gina McCarthy, the nominee to head the EPA, answered on the record during her nomination proceedings, suggesting the EPA was not involved.

Questions for the Record from Sen. Vitter to Gina McCarthy, nominee to be EPA Administrator

The questions were submitted on April 15. Responses were received on April 30.

Question: What health benefits are projected to occur as a result of an existing source NSPS – that is, benefits other than the co-control of criteria pollutants or NESHAPS?

Answer: At this time, EPA is working to finalize the proposed NSPS for new power plants. The agency is not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations for power plants. As a result, we have performed no analysis that would identify specific health benefits from establishing an existing source program.

Question: What plans does EPA have to adopt new GHG regulations for existing power plants? Specifically, has your office prepared draft regulations, what regulatory options are you considering, and what is the likely timeline for such action?

Answer: EPA is not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations for power plants. Accordingly, the Office of Air and Radiation has not prepared draft regulations. The office’s current work is focused on reviewing the comments submitted in response to the proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants under section 111(b).

Question: Once EPA finalizes its proposed NSPS for GG Emissions for New Stationary Sources: Electric Generating Units (EGUs), does the agency intend to propose regulations under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to establish procedures whereby states set standards of performance for GHG emissions from existing EGUs in their jurisdiction? If so, does EPA agree that it can only issue guidance to the states on regulating GHG emissions from power plants and that each state must submit a plan to the agency that sets standards for performance for existing power plants within the state? Will EPA discuss its plans for the guidance with states prior to issuing such guidance?

Answer: EPA is not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations for power plants. As a general matter, the provisions of section 111(d)(1) are plain on their face to the extent that they require EPA to “prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure … under which each State shall submit … a plan which … establishes standards of performance for any existing source ….” In the event that EPA does undertake action to address GHG emissions from existing power plants, the agency will ensure, as it always seeks to do, ample opportunity for the public and stakeholders to offer meaningful input on potential approaches.

Question: Has the agency done any legal analysis of the challenge of regulating greenhouse gases from powerplants under 111(d)? Can you share it with me?

Answer: At this time, EPA is working to finalize the proposed NSPS for new sources. The agency is not currently developing any existing source GHG regulations. In the event that EPA does undertake action to address GHG emissions from existing power plants, the agency would ensure, as it always seeks to do, ample opportunity for States, the public and stakeholders to offer meaningful input on potential approaches.

Analysis: Obama’s climate agenda may face setbacks in federal court

Friday, April 5th, 2013

Source:  TownHall

By Valerie Volcovici

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s plan to use federal agencies, and the Environmental Protection Agency in particular, to drive his second-term climate change agenda might be in peril if he cannot fill vacant seats on the federal court that has jurisdiction over major national regulations, legal experts say.

Obama is the first full-term president in more than a half century not to have appointed a single judge to the powerful U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. (more…)

Government of, by and for the EPA

Tuesday, September 11th, 2012

Source:  SPPI

EPA Madness Spreads

EPA advances anti-energy agenda, with little regard for Americans’ health or welfare

by Paul Driessen

Seven score and nine years ago, President Lincoln resolved to take increased devotion to ensuring that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the Earth.

Yet, today, our lives are determined not so much by We the People, as by a distant central government, particularly increasingly powerful, unelected and unaccountable Executive Branch agencies. Foremost among them, by almost any standard, is the Environmental Protection Agency.

Under Administrator Lisa Jackson, the Gettysburg vision has mutated into government of, by and for the EPA. Indeed, Ms. Jackson seeks not merely to regulate, but to legislate; not merely to protect our health and environment against every conceivable risk, but to control every facet of our economy, livelihoods and lives. Under her direction, EPA increasingly flaunts the naked power of regulators gone wild. (more…)

EPA’s Regional Administrators Love Activism, Litigation

Thursday, July 5th, 2012

Source:  NLPC

See SPPI profile on Lisa Jackson

The suspicions of Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe were correct: Rather than sitting before the House Energy and Commerce Committee three weeks ago to explain the ways he “crucified” oil and natural gas companies, instead Al Armendariz – who cancelled his appearance at the last minute – met with the Sierra Club for a job interview.

This time the recently resigned EPA’s Region 6 administrator will eagerly attack another fossil fuel, joining the litigious environmental group as part of its “Beyond Coal” campaign. If there was any question that Armendariz unfairly regulated the gas and oil businesses under his authority in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and other neighboring states, the Sierra Club announcement left no doubt.

“I know how important it is to transition to cleaner sources of energy that don’t pollute the air that our children breathe,” he said, “and I’m proud to be working on a campaign with a proven track record for success.”

Inhofe proved prescient in remarks to National Journal on June 7th. (more…)

All Pain and No Gain — The Illusory Benefits of the Utility MACT

Friday, June 8th, 2012

Source:  CEI

by Marlo Lewis

Executive Summary
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
Utility MACT Rule establishes the first-ever maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) standards for
emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from
coal- and oil-fired power plants.
Mercury is the principal HAP targeted by the Rule.
Unlike most air pollutants, mercury poses health risks
not via inhalation but after being deposited in bodies
of water. Microbes can transform some of the mercury
into an organic form, methylmercury, which can
accumulate in aquatic food chains.
The EPA contends that pregnant women in subsistence
fishing households consume enough methylmercury in
self-caught fish to impair fetal cognitive and neurological
development. The MACT Rule supposedly reduces
the risk to unborn children by lowering methylmercury
concentrations in non-commercial fish. But the
agency provides no empirical evidence that any
American children are harmed by mercury emissions.
With an EPA-estimated annual compliance cost of
$9.6 billion, the Utility MACT Rule is one of the most
costly environmental regulations in the nation’s history.
The EPA claims that the Rule will deliver up to $80
billion in annual net benefits, with no risk of significant
adverse impacts on fuel choice, electric supply reliability,
or employment. These claims are false.

See full paper here:

http://www.globalwarming.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Marlo-Lewis-William-Yeatman-and-David-Bier-All-Pain-and-No-Gain.pdf

Obama Administration’s War on Natural Gas Continues To Expand

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Source:  Senator Inhofe

Link to Press Release

Washington, D.C. – Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, blasted President Obama’s executive order, “Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources,” released today that will coordinate the activities of thirteen or more different federal agencies on natural gas development.

“President Obama now believes that his administration’s efforts to regulate natural gas production have become so complicated and convoluted that he needs yet another government board to coordinate them,” Senator Inhofe said, “While he makes disingenuous claims about how this working group is to increase natural gas production, we all know that the more layers of government involved, the greater the likelihood that he can stall efforts towards development.  He already has ten federal agencies looking into hydraulic fracturing with the express purpose of trying to find something wrong with it – now President Obama wants to add yet another layer of bureaucracy.  And to make matters worse, this working group incorporates even more federal agencies in the mix, bringing the total to thirteen with the possibility of more.  So why, when states are already regulating the process safely, efficiently, and effectively is President Obama pushing for the involvement of more than thirteen different federal agencies?  The answer is simple: with an election on the horizon – and the American people are feeling the economic pain of his disastrous war on fossil fuels – he’s trying to pretend he supports natural gas production, while ensuring that the federal government does everything possible to impede hydraulic fracturing. (more…)

Executive Order: Federal Government To Take Control of Domestic Natural Gas Production; EPA Set To Move Within One Week

Monday, April 16th, 2012

Source:  SHTF

While Americans focused their attention on the Colombian controversy involving U.S. Secret Service agents, prostitutes and excessive drinking, President Obama quietly signed his latest Presidential Executive Order.

The Supporting Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources Executive Order seeks to create what amounts to a Presidential super committee that will oversee the regulation and development of the ‘unconventional’ natural gas industry for the purpose of ensuring a long-term natural gas supply for the United States, as well as to do so in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

Excerpts (Read the complete E.O.):

While natural gas production is carried out by private firms, and States are the primary regulators of onshore oil and gas activities, the Federal Government has an important role to play by regulating oil and gas activities on public and Indian trust lands, encouraging greater use of natural gas in transportation, supporting research and development aimed at improving the safety of natural gas development and transportation activities, and setting sensible, cost-effective public health and environmental standards to implement Federal law and augment State safeguards.

Because efforts to promote safe, responsible, and efficient development of unconventional domestic natural gas resources are underway at a number of executive departments and agencies (agencies), close interagency coordination is important for effective implementation of these programs and activities.  To formalize and promote ongoing interagency coordination, this order establishes a high-level, interagency working group that will facilitate coordinated Administration policy efforts to support safe and responsible unconventional domestic natural gas development. (more…)

  • pyaemia