Tag: "Regulation EPA Electricity Energy"

Oregon & EPA Launch Aggressive Moves Against Coal

Oregon is now one of the first states to announce that it plans to officially wean itself off coal consumption. Governor Kate Brown signed a bill that prohibits the state’s utilities from purchasing coal-fired power after 2030. The bill is largely symbolic, since Oregon is not a coal producing state and consumes very little coal. In fact, Oregon produces and consumes far more hydroelectric energy than coal and natural gas.

  • The level of coal consumption has been steadily rising in Oregon.
  • Coal consumption is only 3 percent of all fossil fuel consumption.
  • Coal consumption is only 2 percent of all fuel and renewable energy consumption.
  • Hydroelectric power accounts for close to 35 to 40 percent of all of Oregon’s energy consumption.

In addition to Oregon’s anti-coal move, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that 11 states have failed to submit plans to reduce sulfur dioxide air pollution. The EPA says the states have not reduced their emissions enough to meet federal limits or submitted plans to the EPA outlining how they will meet an October 2018 deadline for meeting standards.

Both of these efforts will more than likely have very little effect. Oregon is not much of a coal consuming state and the EPA’s deadline comes after the next federal administration is sworn into office.

Mar 14, 2016 | 5 comments | by

Utah Joins Oklahoma in Rejecting Clean Power Plan

The state of Utah has now joined Oklahoma in outright rejecting complying with the Clean Power Plan after the Supreme Court halted the regulations earlier in February. Utah was already a member of a coalition of 30 states challenging the EPA’s Clean Power Plan in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Under the plan, all states are required to come up with their own carbon emission reduction goals or have federal goals imposed on the state. It directs states to lower their greenhouse gas emissions by a third by 2030, specifically targeting the coal industry. An outright rejection may be viewed as the state is unwilling to come up with their own goals, thereby requiring the federal government to interfere in each state’s coal industry and electricity production.

Groups suing the agency say is an impossible goal that will raise energy prices and raise the potential for rolling blackouts. In addition, a study by NERA Economic Consulting concluded that:

The EPA has severely underestimated the cost of compliance with its regulation of carbon dioxide from power plants, and by doing so it is trying to make Americans believe that the government can force the electric generating sector to eliminate a massive amount of low-cost coal-fired generation for little or relatively no cost. U.S. consumers of electricity will pay for prematurely retiring coal-fired plants through substantially higher electricity prices. Because EPA has set emission reduction targets by state, the impact of the higher costs will not be borne equally, but 40 states (out of 47 affected) could see average electricity prices rise by 10 percent or more and 27 states could see average electricity prices increase 20 percent or more.

With the recent Supreme Court decision to stay the implementation of the Clean Power Plan, other states say they will continue to work on complying with the plan. EPA senior officials have said they will meet with any states that wish to voluntarily continue working on the regulations.

 

Mar 02, 2016 | 1 comment | by

Supreme Court Ruling Temporarily Helps Coal Industry

The Supreme Courts’ recent ruling temporarily holds off increased regulations on the coal industry. The administration’s stricter coal plant rules, which call for a phased-in 30-percent reduction in emissions by 2030 will be based on a state-by-state voluntary basis.

According to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

We will continue to provide tools and outreach. But we clearly understand that the courts will be winding through the process of looking at that rule. The [Supreme Court’s ruling] means that it’s going to take a little longer for that to happen. We will respect that, but in the meantime we’re going to continue to address greenhouse gases with the authorities under the Clean Air Act that are available to us today.

The Clean Power Plan requires very strict environmental controls to limit emissions from power plants. Twenty-seven states and a group of industry advocacy organizations challenged the new plan at the Supreme Court. The coalition of states and industry asked the Supreme Court to allow them to hold off on implementing the Clean Power Plan until after the Supreme Court has ruled on its legality. The Supreme Court granted a stay on the Clean Power Plan, giving hope, for now, to the coal industry and its allies.

Feb 17, 2016 | 2 comments | by

Supreme Court Votes Against Clean Air Act

Yesterday, the Supreme Court vote dealt a major blow to President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for ozone and five other pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. However, the new regulation would have severe consequences, as emphasized here by the Supreme Court vote.

In addition, written testimony, related to this issue, by the NCPA to the Environmental Protection Agency last year included:

The EPA’s proposed regulation ― which would lower the threshold of ground-level ozone pollution ― has been characterized as “the most expensive regulation ever.”

President Obama nixed a similar version of this rule in 2011, claiming that he was acting to “underscore the importance of reducing regulatory burdens and regulatory uncertainty.” Yet many are wondering what happened to President Obama’s commitment to “reducing regulatory burdens” in the face of the EPA’s new proposal.

The proposal itself would lower the existing acceptable ozone standard from 75 parts per billion (ppb) to somewhere between 65 and 70 ppb ― though the EPA’s science advisers would rather see limits closer to 60 ppb. According to the EPA and environmentalist groups, lowering the amount of acceptable ozone would increase public health, reduce illness and premature deaths, and lead to $21.2-$42.1 billion in benefits, contrasted with $16.6 billion in costs.

However, a recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that the new ozone regulation could have a very high cost in jobs and to the economy. The study found that a stricter new ozone regulation could:

  • Reduce U.S. GDP by $270 billion per year and $3.4 trillion from 2017 to 2040.
  • Result in 2.9 million fewer jobs per year on average through 2040.
  • Cost the average U.S. household $1,570 per year.
  • Increase natural gas and electricity costs for manufacturers and households across the country.

The EPA must make a final decision on the rule by October 1, 2015. While many argue that it’s too early to truly estimate the costs of the proposed regulation, the initial forecasts put millions of jobs, billions of dollars in investment, and trillions of dollars of economic output at risk.

Heavy regulations like this one cost too many jobs and wreck the economy. Businesses will choose to go to other countries with friendlier business environments, further negatively impacting our economy in the long run. We must look at the bigger picture and see the other side of the issue and understand that more harm than good is achieved through many existing regulations like this new one.

A domestic energy boom means nothing if the economy cannot rise with it — over a trillion dollars of estimated regulatory burden directly burdens job markets and wage growth. The American voters are clear: the economy and jobs remains their top concern; elected officials need to begin representing their constituents.

Feb 10, 2016 | 1 comment | by

New NERA Study Details Economic Impact of Clean Power Plan

A new study by NERA Economic Consulting explains the economic impact from increased regulations from the federal government’s Clean Power Plan (CCP) in great detail. The CCP’s goal is to reduce carbon emissions from new and existing fossil-fueled power plants in the United States. States have the responsibility to meet the CPP goals. If they fail to come up with a carbon reduction plan or submit a plan that does not comply with CPP, the federal government steps in with their plan to meet the CPP goals. CPP goals include:

  • All compliance scenarios lead to large reductions in average CO2 emissions.
  • Reductions range from 19% to 21%.
  • By 2031, annual emissions are expected to be 36% to 37% lower than in 2005.

NERA estimates that the impact of the CPP on the energy sector, electricity rates and to the economy include:

  • Total energy sector expenditure from 2022 through 2033 increases range from $220 to $292 billion.
  • Annual average expenditures increase between $29 and $39 billion each year.
  • Average annual U.S. retail electricity rate increases range from 11%/year to 14%/year over the same time period.
  • Losses to U.S. consumers range from $64 billion to $79 billion on a present value basis over the same time period.

State-level average electricity price increases demonstrate that many states could experience significant price increases:

  • 40 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 10% or more.
  • 17 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 20% or more.
  • 10 states could have average retail electricity price increases of 30% or more.

The highest annual increase in retail rates relative to the baseline also shows that many states could experience periods of significant price increases:

  • 41 states could have “peak” retail electricity price increases of 10% or more.
  • 28 states could have “peak” retail electricity price increases of 20% or more.
  • 7 states could have “peak” retail electricity price increases of 40% or more.
Nov 18, 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

California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard

California’s 2002 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), Senate Bill No. 1078 mandated that electric providers procure renewable power from eligible sources at 17% of customer sales by 2017. The bill also required the Public Utility Commission (PUC), being the regulatory agency for electricity providers, establish a certification and monitoring program through the state Energy Commission. Subsequently, Senate Bill No. 107, along with executive orders, accelerated the program to require a 20% renewable procurement by the end of 2010 and 33% by the end of 2020. Recently, Governor Jerry Brown announced his proposal to further increase the portfolio standard to 50% by 2030. According to the RPS Program Overview page, California’s goal is to be, “One of the most ambitious renewable energy standards in the country”. It appears the state may have succeeded in that effort.

Currently, federal funds nurse CA’s renewables mandate in the form of subsidies like the Production Tax Credits (PTC) and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). However, revenue from these federal programs are not expected to continue, and pressure is mounting for the renewable fuel industry to stand on its own. In fact, several states are reconsidering their programs’ viability.

So, how will proponents peddle the program to consumers when the federal subsidies end? The full cost associated with RPS programs are difficult to evaluate. A 2015 study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), estimates an expected 10% increase in electrical energy costs to consumers as a result of the state’s RPS. This, to a state with consistently the highest electricity cost in the nation. Still, the consumer impact aspect of continuing, even expanding the mandate, does not appear to be the primary consideration. The report suggests the methodologies used to discover the true costs are demonstrably inappropriate. As well, outlays for integration, transmission, and administrative expenditures are not included in the cost analysis.

NREL suggests to policymakers that going forward, they should look beyond “simply a narrow consideration” of the costs of the program to ratepayers. Instead, the report promotes the development of a means to recognize program value based on “broader societal impacts”.

Graph

Aug 31, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

EPA and Regulatory Taking of Private Property

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbids the government from taking privately owned property without the due process of law, and without just compensation. However, what constitutes a government “taking” and can “due process” be preemptively satisfied by agency regulation? It seems in the case of “wetlands”, the EPA has overreached its authority.

Let us first attempt to identify “wetlands”. According to a comprehensive classification system developed in 1979, a site can be categorized as coastal or inland, yet the classification of “wetland” is not site-specific. Instead, “wetlands” is explained as a hierarchical, progressive structure of connected waters of the state. In what is termed the Cowardin Classification System, “wetlands” is an all-encompassing geographical feature. It consists of linked layers of species and subspecies, soil types and subtypes, an assortment of vegetation, along with various water sources, movements, and duration of presence. Simply stated, a piece of ground that can receive water (including rain) is part of the system that is “wetlands”. The Cowardin System, prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is an impressive, comprehensive report. Indeed, it has been the de facto standard for EPA employees in assigning a wetlands designation to private property. As a result, EPA’s authority and jurisdiction relating to “Navigable Waters” has multiplied.

As a result, many landowners have lost private property usage and development rights. Effectively, the property owner has suffered a “taking” by the federal government. Such was the case of Mike and Chantell Sackett, an Idaho couple who challenged the EPA’s enforcement actions under §404 (wetlands) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). In a 2013 decision, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the EPA. In essence, the agency could not deny the Sacketts a hearing to challenge the agency’s use of CWA authority and jurisdiction over their land. The Sacketts successfully argued the EPA violated their constitutional right to due process. The simple question before the Supreme Court was whether landowners have a right to challenge a legal order of the EPA? The answer was a resounding 9 to 0 “Yes”. The EPA worked to preclude the right to judicial review exercising self-assumed authority in designating wetlands. In the majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the court rejected EPA’s attempt to use the CWA as a blanket fulfillment of due process. Justice Samuel Alito concurred stating Congress should clarify ambiguities in the CWA.

In the case of Rapanos v. the United States, though the court came to no decision (the parties eventually settled), four Justices spoke against the EPA. Justice Scalia wrote the EPA’s use of the term “waters of the United States” is an overreach in identification of wetlands. The concurring Justices agreed. The court found that occasional, intermittent, or ephemeral water flows may have a hydrological connection. However, “are not sufficient to qualify a wetland as covered by the CWA; it must have a continuous surface connection”.

Likewise, in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Court ruled against EPA. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote the EPA overreached in its wetland designation of “isolated, abandoned sand and gravel pits with seasonal ponds, which provide migratory bird habitats”. Both the Rapanos and the SWANCC court opinions counter the Cowardin concept of all waters being connected in one wetlands system. Such decisions constitute a slap-of-the-hand by the Supreme Court to EPA and offer an opportunity to discuss the ever increasing dominance of the agency over the lives of everyday citizens.

America’s founders designed our government to serve the people. Increasingly citizens are left with little recourse but to ask the courts to assure their constitutional rights as threatened by dominant government agencies. The EPA, arguably being one of the most insidious, dictatorial federal agencies.

Fortunately, recent Supreme Court decisions and Justice Alito’s urging that Congress address ambiguities have triggered action by some. Several Senators have introduced S.980 a bill that attempts to clarify the CWA by explaining waters of the state are “Navigable-in-fact” and is “permanent, standing, or continuously flowing bodies…from streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes and are connected to waters that are navigable-in-fact“. Passing S. 980 would be a great start to corralling the EPA’s assault on private property rights. This, along with the Supreme Court ruling affirming the 5th amendment right to due process is an indication we are making headway.

Aug 19, 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

Wind Subsides Cost Taxpayers Big

Appears on Newsmax:

A draft package released by the Senate Finance Committee proposes to revive a 2.3 cent per kilowatt-hour production tax credit (PTC) incentive for wind energy, which lapsed last December. Congress had voted to terminate the PTC along with other tax breaks for wind projects at the end of 2013, only to have it retroactively extended through 2014 by the Obama cromnibus budget.

Previous “temporary helping hand” extensions have been granted seven times since PTC was first stablished in 1992 to “help the industry compete in the marketplace.” It was preceded by two other “temporary” federal subsidies dating back to 1978, which were advertised to accomplish the same elusive purpose.

Alas, despite lots of windy marketing claims there simply aren’t any free “renewable energy” lunches. According to the Energy Information Administration, 2013 PTC wind benefits alone topped $5.9 billion, while solar received $5.3 billion. The Senate Finance Committee now projects that a two-year PTC extension will heap on another $10.5 billion in lost federal tax revenues over the next 10 years.

Wind and solar combined provided less than 5 percent of total U.S. electricity in 2013. Yet according to the nonprofit Institute for Energy Research, federal subsidies and support on the basis of that per-unit electricity production, each of them received more than 50 times more subsidy support than coal and natural gas combined.

Added to this taxpayer pain are cost penalties borne by electricity consumers thanks to renewable energy mandates provided in 29 states and the District of Columbia that guarantee designated market shares regardless of extra production charges for wind and solar power. Escalating costs have prompted Ohio to freeze its mandates, and West Virginia to cancel them altogether.

Consider New York state, for example, which has been blowing billions of taxpayer green on wind, yet has some of the highest U.S. electricity rates. Despite this charity, a household there using 6,500 kwh of electricity annually will pay about $400 more than the national average. Statewide, this 53 percent extra cost over the national average amounts to approximately $3.2 billion each year. And after all, wasn’t the main idea to replace fossil-fueled plants with assuredly “cost-effective” renewables? A 2013 report by the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) estimates that New York’s first 15 wind farms operating in 2010 produced about a 2.4 million megawatt-hour output.

That’s equivalent to a single 450 mwh gas-fired combined cycle generating unit operating only at 60 percent capacity which can be built at about one-fourth of the capital cost. Even worse, those wind turbines have a very short operating life, requiring a total infrastructure reinvestment about every 10-13 years, easily a $2 billion replacement for New York.

Add to this substantial infrastructure and transmission costs to deliver electricity from remote wind sites to the New York City area where greatest power demand exists. Such dislocations between locations of supply and high demand are typical throughout all regions of America, both for industrial scale wind and solar. The quality of that power isn’t any bargain either.

Unlike coal- and natural-gas-fired plants that provide reliable power when needed — including peak demand times — wind turbines only produce electricity intermittently as variable daily and seasonal weather conditions permit regardless of demand. That fickle output trend favors colder night-time periods rather than hot summer late afternoons when needed most.

The real kicker here is that wind has no real capacity value. Intermittent outputs require access to a “shadow capacity,” which enables utilities to balance power grids when wind conditions aren’t optimum . . . which is most of the time. What we don’t tend hear about is that those “spinning reserves” which equal total wind capacity are likely fueled by coal or natural gas which anti-fossil activists love to hate and wind was touted to replace. But then again, self-proclaimed environmentalists aren’t all keen on wind turbines either.

A Sierra Club official described them as giant “Cuisinarts in the sky” for bird and bat slaughters. In some cases “not in my backyard” resistance arises from an aesthetic perspective as evidenced, for example, by strong public opposition to the proposed 130-turbine offshore Cape Wind development stretching across 24 square miles of Nantucket Sound’s pristine Horseshoe Shoal. Other wind critics also have legitimate health concerns about land-based installations. Common symptoms include headaches, nausea, sleeplessness, and ringing in ears resulting from prolonged exposure to inaudibly low “infrasound” frequencies that penetrate walls.

So long as this industry’s survival depends upon preferential government handouts and regulatory mandates, two things are clear. Wind is not a free, or a competitive free market source of energy. It is also not a charity we can continue to afford blow money into. It’s time to finally pull the plug and permanently cut off the taxpayer and rate-payer juice.

Aug 03, 2015 | 4 comments | by
Next Page »