The November elections will determine the direction of
US climate policy—and therefore also energy policy and the pace of economic
growth: jobs, standards of living, budget deficits and inflation. Obama has
already promised to make climate change the centerpiece of his concern—with all
that implies: “Green” energy policy, linked to loss of jobs (Keystone pipeline
disapproval), rising gas prices (ethanol mandates), and crony capitalism
(Solyndra).”
By contrast, Romney is a
climate skeptic—and Ryan has been quite outspoken: the perfect anti-Gore. The
science supports Romney-Ryan—notwithstanding the UN-IPCC, and the bulk of the
climate scientists living high on the hog on government grants.
All of this emerged from
campaign rhetoric—but it needs to be spelled out more clearly. Note that Obama
no longer promises to “heal the Earth and stop the rise of the oceans.” He has
also been uncharacteristically quiet about his efforts to “make electricity
prices skyrocket.” But there is more in store if he is re-elected and unleashes
the full regulatory apparatus of the EPA.
Senate report
Earlier this month, Senator
James Inhofe (R-Okla. ), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment
and Public Works, released a new EPW Minority Report entitled, “A Look Ahead to EPA
Regulations for 2013: Numerous Obama EPA Rules Placed On Hold until after the
Election Spell Doom for Jobs and Economic Growth.”
This report enumerates the
slew of environmental regulations that the Obama-Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has delayed or punted on before the election while President Obama
is trying to earn votes; but the Obama-EPA plans to move full speed ahead to
implement this agenda if President Obama wins a second term. As this report
reveals, these rules taken together will inevitably result in the elimination
of millions of American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more,
impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down
American oil, natural gas, and coal production.
President Obama has spent the past year punting on a
slew of job-killing EPA regulations that will destroy millions of American jobs
and cause energy prices to skyrocket even more,” Senator Inhofe said.
“From greenhouse gas regulations to water guidance to the tightening of the
ozone standard, the Obama-EPA has delayed the implementation of rule after rule
because they don’t want all those pink slips and price spikes to hit
until after the
election. But President Obama’s former climate czar Carol Browner was very
clear about what’s in store for next year: she told several green groups not to
worry because President Obama has a big green ‘to-do’ list for 2013—so they’ll
get what they want. As a result, hard working Americans will lose their jobs
and be subjected to skyrocketing energy prices
This report also importantly puts the spotlight back
on an Obama-EPA that has, as the Washington Post said, earned a ‘reputation for
abuse.’ It serves as a stark reminder that President Obama has presided over a
green team administration that works every day to ‘crucify’ oil and gas companies
and make sure that ‘if you want to build a
coal plant you got a big problem.’
Rules Delayed or “Punted”
until 2013 by Obama-EPA
Greenhouse Gas Regulations: These regulations—which
President Obama himself warned would be worse than global warming cap-and-trade
legislation—will be an enormous burden on the American people. These rules will
cost more than $300 to $400 billion a year, and significantly raise the price
of gas at the pump and energy in the home. It’s not just coal plants that will
be affected: under the Clean Air Act (CAA), churches, schools, restaurants,
hospitals and farms will eventually be regulated.
Thus far, EPA has issued
regulations governing permit programs and monitoring requirements. Earlier this
year, EPA proposed the first source-specific greenhouse gas
regulations—emissions standards for new power plants. The proposal paints an
ominous picture for rate payers: the requirements are so strict, they virtually
eliminate coal as a fuel option for future electric power generation. In a
thinly veiled political move, the agency has put off finalizing the proposal
until after the election. Similarly, EPA has punted on standards for existing power
plants as well as refineries—standards which will further drive up electricity
and gasoline prices. Once these regulations are in place, EPA will proceed to
issue regulations, industry by industry, until virtually every aspect of the
American economy is constrained by strict regulatory requirements and high
energy prices.
Take for example, farms: under
federal permitting requirements, sources (i.e., a farm whose aggregate
emissions exceed CAA permitting thresholds) would be required to comply with
costly permitting mandates and pay an annual fee for each ton of greenhouse gas
emitted on an annual basis. Known as the “cow tax”, there would be a
cost-per-animal outcome. EPA itself estimates that in its best case scenario,
there will be over 37,000 farms and ranches subject to greenhouse gas permits
at an average cost of $23,000 per permit annually, affecting over 90% of the
livestock production in the United States.
Ozone Rule: As the New York
Times reported last year, President
Obama punted on tightening the ozone standard until after the election,
admitting that the “regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty” would harm
jobs and the economy—but he still pointed to the fact that it will be
reconsidered in 2013. EPA itself estimated that its ozone standard would cost
$90 billion a year, while other studies have projected that the rule could cost
upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7. 4 million jobs. By EPA’s own projections,
it could put 650 additional counties into the category of “non-attainment,”
which is the equivalent of posting a “closed for business” sign on communities.
Affected counties will suffer from severe EPA-imposed restrictions on job
creation and business expansion, including large numbers of plant closures. The Times concluded:
“The full retreat on the smog standard was the first and most important
environmental decision of the presidential campaign season that is now fully
underway. An examination of that decision, based on interviews with lobbyists
on both sides, former officials and policy makers at the upper reaches of the
White House and the E. P. A. , illustrates the new calculus on political and
policy shifts as the White House sharpens its focus on the president’s
re-election.”
Hydraulic Fracturing: Today the Obama
administration—through no less than fourteen federal agencies, including the
EPA, the Department of Energy (DOE), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
Center for Disease Control (CDC), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)—is currently working to find ways to
regulate hydraulic fracturing at the federal level, so that they can limit and
eventually stop the practice altogether. In order to curtail hydraulic
fracturing on public lands, BLM, under Secretary Salazar’s control, will be
finalizing new regulations sometime after the election, which will have serious
impacts on domestic energy production. According to one study, “The total aggregate cost
for new permits and well workovers resulting from this rule would range from
$1. 499 billion to $1. 615 billion annually. This is a conservative estimate of
the delays and costs associated with the proposed rule which equates to about
$253,800 per well, and $233,100 per re-fracture stimulation.” The Obama
Administration’s anti-hydraulic fracturing agenda doesn’t stop there. In the
months following the election, we can expect the EPA alone to: issue guidance
for the usage of diesel fuels during hydraulic fracturing, which will strip
states of the primacy granted to them through the Safe Drinking Water Act;
complete a study—highly criticized and unsupported by multiple state and
federal agencies—desperately attempting to link hydraulic fracturing to water
contamination in Pavillion, WY; answer countless petitions filed by radical
environmental organizations potentially leading to the back-door regulation of
hydraulic fracturing through the Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, and Clean Air Act; and potentially introduce
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for both shale gas extraction and coal-bed methane.
Florida Numeric Nutrient
Criteria: As the Associated Press reported, “When the
Obama administration agreed to set the first-ever federal limits on runoff in
Florida, environmental groups were pleased [. . . ] Nearly three years
later—with a presidential election looming and Florida expected to play a
critical role in the outcome—those groups are still waiting.” In 2009, EPA
issued a Clean Water Act (CWA) determination that it would set federal numeric
nutrient water quality standards for Florida. The proposed standards EPA
unveiled in 2010 were criticized for being technologically and economically
infeasible. Florida established its own nutrient criteria, and in 2011,
petitioned EPA to withdraw the agency’s January 2009 determination that numeric
nutrient criteria are necessary in Florida, repeal federal rulemaking completed
in 2010, and refrain from proposing or promulgating any further numeric
standards. In June 2012 a Florida administrative law judge ruled that the state
acted within its authority by establishing Florida-specific numeric nutrient
standards for the state’s inland waters. Florida certified its standards on
June 13, 2012 and submitted it to EPA for approval. EPA had 60 days from this
date to approve the rule or 90 days to disapprove it. EPA has only sent back an
“initial response” that gives no indication whether or not EPA will approve the
Florida rule. EPA has thus far punted both on enforcing their own standards and
on responding to Florida’s petition to establish their own standards.
EPA’s Water Guidance: EPA’s proposed new guidance
document for waters covered by the CWA, proposed in April 2011, reinterprets
recent Supreme Court decisions to allow EPA to expand federal control over
virtually every body of water in the United States, no matter how small. EPA’s
own analysis of the document estimated that up to 17% of current
non-jurisdictional determinations would be considered jurisdictional using the
new guidance. Further, the guidance applies to the entire CWA, which will
result in additional regulatory responsibilities for states. This dramatic
expansion has received tremendous push-back from the regulated community,
states, and municipalities who do not want to have extensive new federal
authorities and the costs associated with additional CWA compliance pushed
through in guidance. As Inside EPA reported
in the spring of 2012, the guidance looks to be delayed until after the election.
This guidance, much like greenhouse gas regulations, failed to pass as
legislation when Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in the House and the
Senate.
Storm-water Regulation: In 2009, EPA announced,
as part of the Chesapeake Bay Settlement Agreement, that the agency would
propose new nationwide storm-water rules by September 2010, with final action
by November 2012. EPA’s advanced notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to
expand the universe of federally regulated storm-water; establish a first-time
standard for post-construction storm-water runoff; require first-time retrofit
requirements on storm-water systems—which could include mandates on cities to
change existing buildings, storm-water sewers, and streets; and mandate the use
of “green infrastructure” techniques (like “green roofs,” rain gardens,
permeable pavement) to replace conventional stormwater management practices.
All this will put enormous cost burdens on states and municipalities and on
anyone who owns property or wants to develop property. If the final rule does
everything EPA has proposed, it could be the most expensive rule in EPA
history. According to EPA’s website, the proposal has been punted until June
2013, and the final rule is due in December 2014.
Tier III Gas Regulations: EPA is preparing to
propose a rulemaking called Tier III, which reduces the content of sulfur in
gasoline from 30 ppm to 10 ppm. The cost of this rule could be up to $10
billion initially and $2. 4 billion annually, and it could add up to 9 cents
per gallon in manufacturing costs; these costs would inevitably be passed on to
consumers at the pump. As a recent Energywire article explained, many on the
far left believe that political motives caused President Obama to delay this
rule until after the election.
Boiler MACT Rule: EPA’s Boiler MACT
(Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards are so strict that not even
the best-performing sources can meet them, so many companies will have no
choice but to shut their doors and ship manufacturing jobs overseas. The rule
has been projected to reduce US GDP by as much as 1. 2 billion dollars and will
destroy nearly 800,000 jobs. Because of bipartisan Congressional opposition to
the standards, the agency is now reconsidering certain aspects of the rule. In
what can only be seen as another politically calculated move, the new rule is now
being held by the White House, presumably until after the election. Not only is
this creating uncertainty among the regulated community, it is also fueling
speculation that very few changes have been made to the rule and that the White
House would prefer that it not be made public until after the election.
Cement MACT Rule: EPA’s Cement MACT rule
could cause 18 plants to shut down, throwing up to 80,000 people out of work.
As more and more cement has to be imported from China, concrete costs for the
construction of roads, bridges, and buildings that use cement could increase
22% to 36%. As with Boiler MACT, due to Congressional opposition, EPA is now
reconsidering certain aspects of the rule, which will not be seen until after
the election.
316(b) Cooling Towers Rule: EPA is planning to
require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power
plants under the Clean Water Act. EPA’s own estimates put the draft rule costs
between $384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17
million—a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1. As the Washington
Guardian noted about the delay, “In its
latest election-year delay of regulations, the Obama administration said
Tuesday it will defer until next year acting on a Clean Water Act rule that
could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths.
The postponement by the Environmental Protection Agency was not unexpected,
with the agency having only recently completed a public comment period on its
latest data. Still, the move to add another 11 months to the rulemaking marks
the latest step by the administration to delay potentially controversial
environmental rules until after the November election.”
Coal Ash: EPA’s proposed coal ash
rule could cost $79 to $110 billion over 20 years, destroying 183,900 to
316,000 jobs; this will have disastrous impacts in states like Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, Ohio and Missouri. As the Charleston Gazette reported, “Despite initial tough talk
on the issue, [EPA administrator Lisa] Jackson issued a regulatory proposal
that did not settle on a particular strategy.” Politico also noted, “EPA is sitting on proposed
regulations to declare coal ash to be a hazardous substance. . . Administrator
Lisa Jackson has said the agency will issue a final coal ash rule by the end of
the year, but environmentalists and coal ash recyclers aren’t convinced.”
Farm Dust Regulations: EPA has been regulating
farm dust for decades and may tighten the standards as part its review of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for coarse particulate matter
(PM10). Tightening the PM10 NAAQS would have widespread implications for rural
America, as it could be below the amount of dust created during normal farming
operations, and therefore be impossible to meet. If the standard is tightened,
the only option for farmers to comply will be to curb every-day farm
activities, which could mean cutting down on numbers of livestock or the
tilling of fields, or they may have to shrink or even end their businesses
altogether.
Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule: EPA’s Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Rule would require farmers and ranchers to develop and
implement costly oil and gasoline spill prevention plans, placing a tremendous
burden on the agricultural community. The original deadline was set for
November 2011, but the rule was delayed due to pressure from Congress. EPA set
a new SPCC deadline of May 10, 2013.
Summary
This lengthy catalog of EPA
horrors does not include schemes being hatched but not yet disclosed. Nor does
it include initiatives by “junior EPAs”—such as the cap-and-trade planby CARB
(Calif Air Resources Board).
Clearly, if Romney-Ryan are
elected, they will have their hands full just reining in the EPA—an essential
step in restoring economic growth. They will need all the help they can get
from the next Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment