Category Archives for Regulation
In what appears to be a direct contradiction to the intent of the EPA’s Scientific Integrity Policy and this administration’s claims to be the “most transparent administration in history,” a memo presented at a “closed-door” July 24th Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting informed members of the advisory board they are not allowed to speak to media or Congress without EPA permission.
That “don’t talk” memo was presented at a closed-door July 24, 2014, portion of EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting, and it was not publicly disclosed at the time. Standard SAB procedure follows federal law in requiring publication of materials distributed to SAB members in advance of a meeting.
Here’s one more article pointing out the high and unintended costs of the EPA’s pending GHG regulations.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog describes (from a variety of reports) how prices across the nation could increase by 6%-7%, or even as much as 12%. They also note that overall consumer costs will increase, electricity rates will increase, and electric reliability will decrease, leaving residents and businesses in the dark and potentially stopping a budding American manufacturing renaissance.
Most people just don’t know that Germany, the darling of the European renewables industry, is in the middle of a massive build-up of its coal-fueled generation fleet. Some, as this WSJ author does, might call it a “coal binge.”
Berlin’s “energy revolution” is going great—if you own a coal mine. The German shift to renewable power sources that started in 2000 has brought the green share of German electricity up to around 25%. But the rest of the energy mix has become more heavily concentrated on coal, which now accounts for some 45% of power generation and growing.
Former Sierra Club activist, Dr. Alan Carlin’s story of his whistleblowing experience at the EPA is an interesting read. In this article, Dr. Carlin describes why he was forced to blow the whistle on EPA during the run up to the CO2 endangerment finding, how he was “muzzled” for bringing forth negative comments, and how he sees the EPA now operating outside of their legal mandate.
No surprise here. The EPA was once again the most prolific, the most expensive, and most restrictive of all the federal agencies in 2014.
Data from the Mercatus Center’s RegData 2.0 database shows that EPA’s air regulators were the top federal regulators in both 2002 and in 2012. However, while the top ten federal agencies publishing the most restrictions* remained the same in those years, the number of restrictions from nearly all of them increased.
Be sure to also check out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s 9 charts that help show the growing impacts of federal regulation.
Coalblog readers – just saw this note on the EPA’s Clean Power Plan webpage.
The comment period has been extended to December 1, 2014
More and more people are waking up to the reality that the war on coal is just one part of a much larger war. As Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich described in a 2013 American Coal magazine article,
The phrase “war on coal,” however, is highly misleading.
A “war on coal” is in fact “a war on Americans.”
It means Americans in small towns in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, southern Illinois, Missouri, Kentucky and Wyoming will lose their jobs and see their communities destroyed as casualties in the Obama “war on coal.”
Don’t miss out! You can still register today!
Alex Epstein (@) Founder of the Center for Industrial Progress will give the keynote presentation at the 2014 Coal Market Strategies Conference (August 11-13, 2014 in Park City, Utah at the Stein Eriksen Lodge). Be sure to attend to be one of the first to learn about his new book, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels!
An avid and innovative champion of fossil fuels, Alex has defended their economic and environmental benefits in debates against , Greenpeace, 350.org’s Bill McKibben, and the Sierra Club. Alex’s writings and views on fossil fuels have been covered and published in hundreds of publications, ranging from the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, and the New York Times to Rolling Stone. He engages with many constituencies on the economic and environmental benefits of fossil fuels, including university students, having spoken at Stanford, Duke, Rice, UCLA and others.
Editor’s note: This is a great article that provides Coalblog readers with a quick, easy to understand explanation of how to submit comments to the EPA for the inappropriately titled, “Carbon Pollution Standard,” (also known as the 111(d) rule, or the Clean Power Plan proposed rule), which targets existing coal-fueled power plants.
By David Wojick, PhD
Everyone who values the coal industry should submit critical comments to EPA on their outrageous proposal to regulate CO2 emissions from electric power generation. For that matter anyone who simply values reliable, affordable electricity should comment. It is easy to do and there are few formalities. The proposed rule is called the “Carbon Pollution Standard.” This name is ridiculous in itself because we are talking about carbon dioxide, which is the global food supply, not carbon, but never mind that now.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce blog describes the flawed logic underlying the latest round of EPA regulations, which are aimed at CO2 emissions and the U.S. coal industry.
Based on projections from the U.S. Department of Energy, the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that will be reduced from EPA’s power plant rule is equivalent to just 13.5 days of Chinese emissions in 2030!
Perhaps that’s why EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy admitted in a hearing last year that regulations are designed instead to “prompt and leverage international discussions and action.”