Tag Archives for EPA
Via Power magazine
Final rules governing cooling water intake structures at 544 U.S. power plants by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today furnish facilities with lower cost compliance options than initially proposed to reduce fish impingement.
The final rule issued under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act applies to facilities that each withdraw at least two million gallons per day of cooling water. The national requirements, which will be implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits “puts implementation analysis in the hands of the permit writers so requirements can be tailored to the particular facility,” the EPA said today.
But as the ad in the May 15, 2014 USA Today noted, there’s nothing funny about it. Click on the graphic below to read the full ad.
Remember that these are the people who are regulating the coal industry to death. It’s time for some of these people to face charges and for the rest of us to start asking, “just what exactly is going on over there”?
Steve Goreham’s recent article on theHill.com will be an eye-opener for those not familiar with the pressures being placed on our electrical grid.
Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the U.S. electrical system―and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts.
Christopher Horner pulls no punches in his characterization of the EPA and the war on coal.
If you wonder why the coal industry–and our entire economy–is lagging right now, one of the chief reasons is the cost for business to comply with federal regulations.
This post by the US Chamber of Commerce is an eye opener. Working in the coal industry gives you a good idea of just how onerous regulation can be, but the coal industry’s troubles are just the tip of the iceberg.
Feel overregulated? You should be:
- In 2013, compliance and economic impact of federal regulations added up to $1.863 trillion.
- Since 1993, a new final regulation has been issues by the federal government every nine days on average.
Leaked Sierra Club documents reveal the “green” group’s plans for their massive multi-million dollar “Beyond Coal” campaign. The confidential document shows that the group planned to spend $150 million dollars just attacking coal jobs and forcing energy prices higher.
“…we will run a strategic national campaign that pushes and supports EPA to issue a series of new pollution-cutting rules relating to each step in the coal lifecycle, including coal mining, coal burning, and disposal of coal ash.”
Here’s a link to a new Heritage Foundation report on the impacts anti-coal EPA regs will have on American manufacturing capacity.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) forthcoming climate change regulations for new and existing electricity generating units have been appropriately labeled the “war on coal,” because the proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions would essentially prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement.
A recent US Chamber of Commerce blog post discusses six key problems with the EPA General Counsel’s explanation of their justification for its involvement in sue and settle agreements.
- Consent decrees are completely secret until presented to the court. There is no public involvement, no opportunity for public comment, and no form of oversight of these agreements until it is too late for the public to comment.
- The consent decree makes the priorities of the plaintiff (typically an unelected and unaccountable environmental NGO) the legal priorities of the EPA. The EPA’s legislated responsibilities become secondary to the court’s rulings, with serious legal and financial consequences should the EPA fail to adhere to the court’s order(s).
A December 2013 Wall Street Journal article noted that, in its rush to push its anti-coal regulations forward, the EPA ignored objections from its own Science Advisory Board. Furthermore, the agency appears to have pushed the SAB to accept research they claimed had been peer reviewed. However, further digging revealed that the EPA had done the claimed “peer review” itself over a period of a few short weeks.
In its original rule, the EPA had pointed to speculative studies and models out of a research unit in the Energy Department to show that sequestration works. Headquarters assured the SAB panel that these studies had been flyspecked by “industry experts, academia and government research and regulatory agencies.”