Category: Federal Government

Cruz’s Victory Against Ethanol Cartel

Most presidential candidates in the past would go to Iowa, the first state to cast a ballot for President of the United States, and proudly, boldly support ethanol and the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) ‒ even if they talked badly about it everywhere else in the nation.

However, Senator Ted Cruz set himself apart from all the others. Cruz voted to repeal the Renewable Fuel Standard. He stood up to the ethanol cartel, while he was campaigning very hard in Iowa. In response, the cartel mobilized an army to fight him, and they were defeated Monday night when he took first place in the Iowa Caucus.

The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is a law requiring traditional fuel to have increasing blends of ethanol and later, other biofuels. However, the RFS plan has already failed.

 

Feb 03, 2016 | 2 comments | by

Murkowski Outlines Senate Energy Plan

In the GOP weekly address, Sen. Murkowski describes the Energy Policy Modernization Act, which includes liquid natural gas (LNG) exports. Looks like it is still on the Senate calendar this week…although it may slip.

On LNG exports, the bill requires the Energy Secretary to approve or disapprove LNG export applications within 45 days, so the applications don’t linger. That’s for nations that don’t already have free trade agreements with us, since most free trade agreements already address expedited LNG exports. It also puts federal energy regulatory commission (FERC) in control of all federal LNG authorizations.

The bill authorizes a new “e-prize” competition, which is basically an x-prize for energy. I’m seeing more and more of these x-prizes in public policy.

The section on nuclear power misses the opportunity to promote molten salt reactors, a nice byproduct of a robust rare earth element policy…but it does call for more nuclear reactor fusion and fission reactor prototypes, so that might encompass molten salt even if it isn’t listed specifically.

There are a ton of repeals and program eliminations, which is a good sign of conservative legislation.

  • Repeal of the methanol study.
  • Repeal of the weatherization study.
  • Repeal of various DOE programs.

Unfortunately, it also reauthorizes the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which is bad public policy.

Jan 25, 2016 | 1 comment | by

SOTU: President Obama’s Reckless Energy Policy

Last night, President Obama gave his final State of the Union (SOTU) address to the nation. He briefly discussed energy policy:

Seven years ago, we made the single biggest investment in clean energy in our history.  Here are the results.  In fields from Iowa to Texas, wind power is now cheaper than dirtier, conventional power.  On rooftops from Arizona to New York, solar is saving Americans tens of millions of dollars a year on their energy bills, and employs more Americans than coal – in jobs that pay better than average.  We’re taking steps to give homeowners the freedom to generate and store their own energy – something environmentalists and Tea Partiers have teamed up to support.  Meanwhile, we’ve cut our imports of foreign oil by nearly sixty percent, and cut carbon pollution more than any other country on Earth.

Gas under two bucks a gallon ain’t bad, either.

Now we’ve got to accelerate the transition away from dirty energy.  Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future – especially in communities that rely on fossil fuels.  That’s why I’m going to push to change the way we manage our oil and coal resources, so that they better reflect the costs they impose on taxpayers and our planet.  That way, we put money back into those communities and put tens of thousands of Americans to work building a 21st century transportation system.

Seven years ago, President Obama said he would bankrupt the coal industry, he has come pretty close to doing just that. The American coal industry is on the verge of collapse, with around 50 companies out of business and stock prices of the big four companies have fallen as much as 99 percent! Most recently, the second largest coal company has filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In addition to all the regulations placed on the coal industry by the Obama administration, natural gas has experienced a boom due to new discoveries and the advanced technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. Natural gas recently passed coal as America’s top source of energy power.

Despite the President’s efforts and the natural gas boom, coal is still a major source of American energy power. While, renewable energy is only supplying 6 percent of our electric power.

Wind power and solar power are also not cheap, compared to energy options such as natural gas and coal. The savings that the President is referring to are the very high subsidies that both the federal government and some states have been giving to individuals for buying wind or solar. Also, I am sure he is adding in the possible savings over something like 20 or 50 years. Yet leaving out the very high initial installation and maintenance costs.

The President’s SOTU last night coverage a variety of topics, including the reckless energy policy over the past seven years. An energy policy that has unnecessarily put our coal industry on life support, at a high cost to taxpayers and energy consumers.

Jan 13, 2016 | Leave a Comment | by

New EPA Employee Bonuses Spark OIG Investigation

Back in the day, if you needed to relocate for a new job, you could elicit the aid of a few strapping young men for little more than the cost of a pizza and a six-pack of beer. Add the cost of a rental truck, and you could probably recoup your expenses after the first paycheck.

Today, the same could probably happen, unless you’re a newly hired Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Director of Finance, in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina. As detailed in a November 30th investigative report by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the OIG hotline received an anonymous call stating a new EPA Director in the RTP Finance Center requested a $250,000 reimbursement of relocation costs. The complainant alleged that on the new Director’s behalf, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) intended to award the funds.

The subsequent investigation found that the new Director had inquired about relocation reimbursement during the interview process and was informed the hiring package did not include such a benefit. However, shortly after she accepted the position, she approached the OCFO, again asking for relocation reimbursement. Thus began the tale of the North Carolina EPA Financial Director’s money chase.

Facts at a glance

10/2014

EPA posts job announcement for Director of Finance.
02/05/2015 The subject employee agrees to accept job with no relocation reimbursement per HR denial citing agency rules.
02/25/2015 OCFO contacts HR after being asked by subject employee to revisit the issue as a relocation “incentive” as opposed to relocation “reimbursement.”
03/09/2015 OCFO submitted request for a relocation incentive to HR for $15,000 representing estimated moving and storage costs.  Again, the request denied.
04/02/2015 HR denied two subsequent revised requests from the OCFO for the subject employee’s relocation incentive.
04/05/2015 Subject employee begins working as New Director with no reimbursement or incentive for relocation.
04/21/2015 Hotline call to OIG regarding OCGO’s intent to give new Director a total of $250,000 compensation for relocation.
05/13/2015 OCFO awarded new Director $4,500 bonus (6 weeks after start)
06/25/2015 OCFO awarded another $4,500 bonus (12 weeks after start)
07/07/2015 The OIG began its audit and investigation as a result of the hotline call. During the audit, OIG learned another bonus was forthcoming. That order was withdrawn as a result of the notice of the investigation.

The OIG concluded its financial audit on September 22, 2015, noting in the report the new Director never received the proposed $250,000 relocation reimbursement.  However, the two $4,500 bonuses within 3-months of her start date were unprecedented and represented approximately 25 percent of her salary for the 3-months covering the time period of her employment.

Upon conclusion of the investigation, the OIG recommended the EPA’s Deputy Administrator revisit the awards made to the new Director, RTP Finance Center, to determine whether the awards are reasonable and properly justified and, if needed, take appropriate action. In addition, for future awards, EPA should establish and require a proper level of management review for multiple awards that total in excess of $5,000 during a fiscal year to ensure that awards are reasonable and justified in comparison to other awards.

Dec 07, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

U.S. House Energy Bill Debate Today

The House of Representatives starts the debate today on 38 amendments out of an original 103 submitted for H.R. 8 —North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015 — and concludes discussion tomorrow. The 2015 energy bill would modernize energy infrastructure, build a 21st century energy and manufacturing workforce, bolster America’s energy security and diplomacy, and promote energy efficiency and government accountability.

Despite the President’s threat to veto the House bill, lawmakers from both parties have over one hundred amendments to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s broad energy bill to discuss in this week’s floor debate.

The amendments included many policy recommendations relating to energy, natural resources, infrastructure and grid security. Below are a few of the 38 amendments to be debated:

  • Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has filed an amendment to repeal the crude oil exports ban.
  • Sean Duffy (R-Wis.) is proposing to require the Secretary of Energy to collaborate with the Secretariat of Energy in Mexico and the Ministry of Natural Resources in Canada when developing guidelines to develop skills for an energy and manufacturing industry workforce.
  • Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) has offered an amendment that would establish a permitting process within DOE, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the State Department for cross-border infrastructure projects.
  • Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.) has an amendment that includes energy storage as a form of energy that DOE should consider to enhance emergency preparedness for energy supply disruptions during natural disasters.
  • Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) has an amendment that secures the most critical components of America’s electrical infrastructure against the threat posed by a potentially catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.
Dec 02, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Organics: Another Fine Government Mess

The Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA), as part of the 1990 Farm Bill, established the National Organic Program (NOP). The program, as administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), oversees uniform standards governing the marketing of organically produced products. The NOP’s mission is to assure consumers of consistent organic standards of production and to facilitate the interstate commerce of organically produced food.

At the time of the NOP’s inception, the organic market for farm products had an estimated annual value of $1 billion.  By 2012, U.S. certified organic sales were at $28.4 billion and according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS), the sales for 2014 are estimated at $35 billion. It is clear that organic sales are showing significant growth, but at what costs?

The current Chipotle E. coli outbreak offers an opportunity for shoppers to understand the true nature of the USDA’s organic certification program. Numerous studies and public opinion polls find consumers overwhelmingly believe the higher priced, organically certified food is a healthier, safer choice.  However, experts, consumer groups and scientific research does not support that view.

In one example, a 14-page letter dated October 8, 2015, by the Consumer Reports National Research Center details many of the failings of the NOP. The letter criticizes the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) for approval of synthetic and non-organic nutrient additives and synthetic pesticide material, even in baby formulas. The letter states, “We support the proposal to remove nonylphenol ethoxylates (alkylphenol ethoxylates) or NPEs/APEs from the list of “inerts” allowed in organic production because of their toxic and endocrine-disrupting effects.”

The Consumer Reports letter demonstrates the discrepancy between what the NOP entails and what the public believes the program offers. The NOP outlines the rules and processes to create uniformity for organic labeling. Although there are restrictions and prohibitions of a variety of chemical applications, the program allows for many waivers and exemptions. Nowhere in the program does it suggest certification assures a safer or more nutritious food choice. In fact, Dr. Stuart Smyth, a food safety expert and agriculture biotechnology researcher calls the National Organic Standards, “an illusion of food safety.” As Smyth explains, “These organic standards pertain to seed, fertilizer, and chemicals that are allowed to be used to produce a crop that will be certifiably organic when it is ready to be harvested. These production standards have absolutely nothing to do with increasing food safety.”

Still, the organic industry, as a marketing ploy, perpetuates the myth to consumers that organic certification implies safer foods. Moreover, with the ever-growing market share, one would assume conscientious shoppers increasingly prefer organic foods. Do they or is that another false assumption? What has changed in the past 15 years to drive the annual market value of organic food products from $1 billion to $35 billion if not consumer preference? How about the huge increase in consumer prices for the organic products, the increased volume of the labeled products, and the massive increase in program funding? To explain, let’s consider just some of the taxpayer dollars pumped into the NOP by means of the most recent farm bill, the 2014 Farm Act.

  • $20,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for program operation
  • $5,000,000 to the Secretary of Agriculture for data collection and distribution to National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) and Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
  • $15,000,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for modernization and technology upgrade
  • $5,000,000 upgrade collaboration with Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).
  • $11,500,000 for each fiscal year 2014 through 2018 for cost-share programs with CCC.
  • $7,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2014 through 2018 for natural products research.

In the above designated funding commitments alone, the federal government will spend $277.5 million through the term of the current agriculture authorization bill. An astonishing amount, considering the original 1990 Organic Foods Production Act stipulated the program costs will be covered entirely by fees gleaned from the program’s participants.

The growth of the organic market follows the growth in federal dollars pumped into the program. Food safety is not improved. Consumers have no assurance they are purchasing a more nutritious product. Third party certifiers charge upwards of $3,000 to farmers for label use creating an incentive for fraud. Foreign products are certified outside of the U.S. by foreign agents with no USDA oversite. Contemporary farmers are at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the marketing, promotion, and price difference of organically labeled product. Organic foods can potentially be less safe than their uncertified counterpart. And, in the end, the taxpayers are again burdened with an unproductive, fraud-laden, market manipulating program that offers no demonstrative benefit.

Nov 11, 2015 | 2 comments | by

Clean Power Plan Opposition Grows

A coalition of 24 states and a power company are suing to stop the Obama administration’s Clean Power Plan (CPP), calling it an unlawful federal bid to control state power grids.

As part of the lawsuit, the states seek to place a hold on the Clean Power Plan’s deadlines for meeting its carbon emission goals, which supporters have described as necessary to improve air quality but foes have criticized as arbitrary and unrealistically strict.

In addition to the lawsuit by the states, pro-business groups have also joined the fight against the Clean power Plan that mandates a massive reduction in carbon emissions in the next 15 years, arguing that it will jack up energy costs and slash jobs without making a dent in greenhouse gases.

U.S. Chamber of Commerce and 14 other business groups filed a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency. Their lawsuit:

  • Claims the EPA has overstepped its authority by attempting a takeover of state power plants.
  • Seeks a hold on the rule’s implementation pending the legal challenge.
  • Parallels the lawsuit filed same day by 24 states.

The Rule requires a fundamental restructuring of the power sector, compelling States, utilities and suppliers to adopt EPA’s preferred sources of power and fuel and to redesign their electricity infrastructure in the process.

A preliminary analysis of the Clean Power Plan issued in October, 2014 by the NERA economic consulting calculated that the CPP could boost retail electricity prices 12 percent to 17 percent.

The Clean Power Plan would effectively shut down coal-fired power plants, which provide inexpensive and reliable electricity but cannot reduce their emissions to the required levels using current technology.

Thousands of businesses will stop providing support services to coal-fired plants and coal mines. Many coal mines will have to reduce operations or close entirely, laying off numerous employees in the process.

Oct 28, 2015 | 1 comment | by

OIG announces probe of EPA’s Reporting Practices on Biofuels Impact

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has announced a probe into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) adherence to reporting requirements regarding biofuel’s impact on air quality. Under the Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), the EPA is to submit to Congress a science-based triennial report on the effect of the controversial program.

As a result of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), changes were made to the Renewable Fuel Standard program (RFS), the program that mandates the blending of ethanol with petroleum-based fuels for domestic use. The law directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to analyze lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the increased use of renewable fuels in comparison with petroleum-based fuels.

The Clean Air Act (CAA), defines the term “lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions” as the GHG impact from all emissions including land use changes and other activities. The law requires EPA’s report to include,

“…all stages of production of fuel and feedstock and distribution, from feedstock generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential.”

According to the OIG’s announcement, the goal of the review is to determine the following;

  1. Whether the EPA has complied with the law on reporting requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  2. If the EPA followed a mandate to amend its previous biofuel’s environmental impact reports to reflect the findings of a 2011 study by the National Academy of Sciences.
  3. If the EPA used the National Academy of Sciences data in subsequent reports.

In preparation for the review the OIG has asked EPA to provide:

  • Triennial Reports to Congress issued after the EPA’s first report in 2011, and any other reports to Congress on the environmental and resource conservation impacts of the RFS program.
  • RFS Antibacksliding Analysis required under Section 211(v) of the Clean Air Act.
  • Documentation of the EPA’s response to the 2011 National Academy of Sciences study and its recommendations.
  • Documented changes or planned future modifications to the RFS regulatory impact analysis or lifecycle analysis based on findings/recommendations from the 2011 National Academy of Sciences study, Triennial Reports to Congress and/or Antibacksliding Analysis (or documentation explaining why no changes were necessary).

The OIG’s investigation comes at a time when the call to cut corn-based ethanol is growing louder. Interestingly, the announcement came one day after the University of Tennessee released results of a comprehensive 10-year review which calls for a restructuring of the RFS program. The Tennessee study concludes, “We have had 10 years under the RFS and a commercially viable, next-generation biofuels technology has not emerged.”

Oct 26, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Gold King Mine an EPA Superfund Site

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released an Emergency Response Statement to a massive pollutant spill in Colorado. According to the agency, EPA contractors caused the accidental breach. As a result, contaminated water flushed from the long abandoned Gold King Mine into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River. The following day, EPA released another statement to explain early reports of a much smaller spill. Following efforts by the U.S. Geological Survey to measure flow rate, the volume of lead, acidic toxins, and heavy metal-laden water was determined to be over three million gallons.

Additionally disturbing was the failure of the EPA to inform the state governors of the spill. “The EPA is not communicating openly with the state of New Mexico,” said Governor Susana Martinez to Fox News. “It took them about a little less than twenty-four hours before they even told us.” In fact, she goes on to explain that it was the Southern Ute Indians that notified her office and criticized the EPA for not revealing exactly what the toxins are.

To farmers, industry, and small business the EPA has the well-established reputation of intimidation and tyrannical authority. The enforcement section of their web page offers thousands of criminal prosecutions, a majority of them settled by a guilty plea. Comparable percentages in the criminal justice system are unattainable. Simply, the justice system requires the government to prove a person guilty while EPA’s system leaves little opportunity for one to even attempt to prove themselves innocent.

For example, Washington state dairyman Roger Bajema pled guilty to permitting wastewater discharge. His plea finally came three years after EPA inspectors took a sample of soil from a drainage ditch. Mr. Bajema acknowledges the ditch had a broken rain water pipe used to move run-off from barn roofs to a holding pond. Broken pipe aside, the family believes he was “targeted”. The farmer had attended an EPA informational forum the day before the inspection. Mr. Bajema spoke, voicing his displeasure with the heavy-handed presence of the agency in his community. The following day, while he worked to repair the cracked water pipe, EPA officials arrived at his farm and began inspecting and sampling. After three years of threats of fines for up to $37,000 a day, he finally learned of the results of the samples in a highly dramatized press release.

The EPA earned a $7,500 penalty for the three-year assault on the Bajema family dairy farm. A large sum of money for a small operator, but a mere pittance to EPA coffers. In 2014 alone, under Civil Enforcement Monetary Commitments, the agency raked in $9,738,000,000 (rounded up to the nearest hundred million) in court ordered Injunctive Relief. They received another $135,000,000 (give or take) in other penalties. In addition, under Superfund Cleanup Enforcement they realized $601,000,000 (thereabouts) and another $63,000,000 in Criminal Enforcement Fines (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2015). This to an agency with a 2015 enacted budget of over $8.1 billion and a workforce of over 15,000.

Still, the EPA is responsible for violating the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA), the very law it is tasked with enforcing. According to 33 U.S.C §1251 et seq. (1972), the CWA makes it, “unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters” (EPA, 2015, para. 3). Mr. Bajema was penalized $7,500 and humiliated in his community for the charge of “potential” to pollute. As a result of the stress, he has sold the cows and closed his operation. Will the EPA suffer a similar punishment? It isn’t likely.

The superpower agency may have already begun working on a way to spin their failure. The EPA website shows the Upper Animas Mining District in Silverton, Co as a Region 8 Superfund site although not on the National Priority List (NPL). It is clear the EPA was aware of the issue for decades. However, a recent Associated Press (AP) news article blames the local community for standing in the way thus contributing to EPA’s failure to take action. This “it’s not our fault” approach to the disaster is not a defense Mr. Bajema offered.

Six days after the spill EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy stated, “It pains me to no end to see this happening”. As well, at an event in Washington D.C. she said the EPA is taking full responsibility and when pressed by a reporter said, “I am absolutely sorry this ever happened“. This may be the closest we get to an apology. It pains us all, but where is the accountability? Are we to believe the zero tolerance attitude of EPA enforcement will result in an equal penalty, punishment, and public humiliation as suffered by other offenders? Or, like the General Services Administration (GSA), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Veteran’s Administration (VA) the EPA will go on and suffer no consequences.

Aug 17, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

EPA Regulations Overruled by Supreme Court

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had not adequately considered the costs of its regulations before enacting them. Limits finalized in 2012 as part of the Clean Air Act on toxic air pollutants proved to be a prohibitive cost on coal utility plants. They were also a main feature in the Obama administration’s environmental policies.

The case, Michigan v. EPA, centered on the first ever limits on mercury, arsenic, and acid gases emitted by coal-fired power plants. While the EPA had estimated the new rules would cost $9.6 billion, placing it among the costliest regulations ever instated.

Prior to the ruling, the head of the EPA Gina McCarthy had said she felt confident the Supreme Court would rule in their favor. However, were that not to be the case, she said:

But even if we don’t [win], it was three years ago, most of them are already in compliance, investments have been made, and we’ll catch up. And we’re still going to get at the toxic pollution from their facilities.

With most coal plants already in compliance, the ruling does little to slow emission curbs in the coal industry. Regulations on interstate air pollution were already upheld last year by the Supreme Court, ensuring that most utilities will need to control future pollution regardless of the new ruling. Furthermore, in the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, the Court ruled that the EPA could reconsider the regulations with better cost assessments before reinstating such rules.

 

Jun 29, 2015 | 5 comments | by
Next Page »