Tag: "EPA"

Economic Gain Increases Environmental Quality

The relationship between environmental quality and economic development has been described as an environmental Kuznets curve: Initially, economic development exacerbates environmental problems; however, as an economy grows and develops, average incomes reach a certain point beyond which environmental indicators start to improve.  Indeed, as gross domestic product per capita increases, emissions of pollutants per $1 of gross domestic product falls. This is true also of industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, which was not traditionally viewed as an air pollutant, but is now regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.  [See the table.] This suggests that economic progress is a prerequisite for improving environmental quality generally, and specifically for meeting carbon dioxide emissions reductions goals.

Carbon Dioxide Emissions

(kilograms of CO2 per $1 gross domestic product)

 

  1990 2000 2010
China 1.9695 1.0110 0.9084
India 0.6533 0.6538 0.5338
Japan 0.3341 0.3328 0.2966
Singapore 0.6105 0.3196 0.0510
South Africa 1.1881 1.0964 0.9692
United Kingdom 0.4272 0.3169 0.2416
United States 0.5988 0.5121 0.4174

 

Note: Dollars of GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity.

Source: Millennium Development Goals Database, United Nations Statistics Division.

Special contribution by NCPA research associate Jiawen Chen. 

Aug 26, 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

Economic Repercussions of the Renewable Fuel Standard

American Petroleum Institute’s Renewable Fuel Standard Facts:

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 included an expanded Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which the EPA used to develop a final rule effective July 1, 2010. To comply with the Standard, biofuel producers and importers must blend increasing amounts of biofuels into gasoline and diesel.

However, there have been problems with the government’s original predictions regarding the supply and demand of gasoline; U.S. gasoline demand has dropped while supply has increased due to the shale and natural gas revolution in North America. Also, cellulosic technologies have not developed as quickly as expected and there are no commercial plants to date. The EPA rushed through approval of an up to 15 percent ethanol blend (E15) without adequate testing, leading to compatibility problems with E15, poor consumer acceptance and significant infrastructure and cost challenges. EPA proposed to address the problem, but has been incapable of finalizing its rule.

A study by NERA Economic Consulting (NERA) buttresses the argument that the RFS is irretrievably broken saying that, RFS ethanol mandates could:

  • Lead to fuel supply disruptions that ripple adversely through the economy.
  • Cause the cost of diesel to rise 300 percent and the cost of gasoline to rise 30 percent.
  • Decrease U.S. GDP by $770 billion.
  • Reduce worker pay $580 billion.
Jul 08, 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

The Real Cost of Clean Power Plan

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan Proposed Rule to cut carbon emissions from power plants, specifically targets coal power plants. Not only would this hurt United States energy supplies, but also greatly increase energy costs that would hit consumers by raising their electricity bill.

The following shows the difference between the analysis of the costs of the National Economic Research Associates and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The EPA estimates:

Annual cost estimates for complying with the Clean Power Plan range from $5.4 billion to $7.4 billion in 2020, to $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030. These annual cost estimates factor in both the costs of investments in transitioning to lower-carbon electricity options and the savings that result from investments in energy efficiency.

NERA estimates:

EPA’s Clean Power Plan could cost consumers and businesses a staggering $41 billion or more per year, far outpacing the costs of compliance for all EPA rules for power plants in 2010 ($7 billion) and the annual cost of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ($10 billion). The analysis also finds that additional coal retirements would total 45,000 megawatts or more of coal-based electricity, posing a major threat to electric reliability in many parts of the country.

Jun 01, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Energy Security Must Include Reliable Power

A similar version of this blog post appeared in Newsmax:

Unlike populations in most other parts of the world we Americans take vital benefits of dependable electricity for granted. We simply plug into an outlet or flip on a switch and fully expect that our lights will go on, our computers will charge, our coffee will heat up, our air conditioners will function, and yes, our generous taxpayer subsidized plug-in vehicles will run again until tomorrow.

This wonderful, finely balanced round-the-clock empowerment required planning and development which didn’t occur overnight. The same will be true of future efforts to restore adequate capabilities after the Obama EPA’s Clean Power Plan takes an estimated one-third of all U.S. coal-fired plants off the grid over the next five years. This amounts to a loss of generating capacity sufficient to supply residential electricity for about 57 million people.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp, a nonprofit oversight group, emphasizes that the plan constitutes “a significant reliability challenge, given the time required for implementation.” The timeline to convert or replace a coal-fired power plant with natural gas requires years, whereby siting, permitting and development to meet EPA’s interim target would need to be completed by 2017.

Even if a state were able to submit a compliance plan by 2017 or 2018, EPA has admitted that it may take up to another year to approve it. New and upgraded natural gas plants will require additional pipeline infrastructure which may take five years or longer. More expansive transmission lines will also be required to connect that capacity to the grid, with full implementation potentially taking up to 15 years.

EPA’s latest climate alarm-premised war on coal assault calls for states to cut CO2 emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030 despite satellite-recorded flat mean global temperatures over the past 18 years and counting. This federal usurpation of state responsibility dating back to the invention of the modern steam engine in the 1880s is unprecedented.

A “finishing rule” expected to be issued in June or July will require states to meet agency carbon-reduction targets by reorganizing their “production, distribution, and use of electricity.” In complying, 39 states must achieve more than 50 percent of EPA’s reduction targets by 2020.

Not only are EPA’s mandates unfeasible, they also demand that states operate “outside the fence line” to force shut-downs of coal (and eventually natural gas), establish minimum quotas for renewables (wind and solar), and impose energy conservation mandates. Never mind here that last year the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled against the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s claim of authority over “demand response” of the national energy grid.

Even liberal Harvard constitutional authority Larry Tribe has observed being stunned at this effort to nationalize U.S. electricity generation by coercing states to pass new laws or rush through new compliance rules that exceed EPA’s legal jurisdiction. President Obama is clearly eager for such policy changes to be quickly put into effect which a future Republican president can’t reverse. This will also provide bragging rights for a climate initiative he can announce at the Paris climate conference later this year.

Fortunately, while states are invited to draw up implementation plans for EPA approval, they really have no legal obligation to do so. And while EPA can attempt to commandeer a federal plan if states resist, there are good incentives for them to band together in calling EPA’s bluff — reasons which can otherwise bear dangerous and costly consequences.

An April 7 Washington, D.C., power outage caused by a mechanical failure and fire at a transfer station temporarily disrupted electricity to the White house, Capitol, government agencies (yes, including the Energy Department), businesses/residents, and street lights. While relatively minor, it most likely could have been avoided if a 60-year-old coal-fired plant called the Potomac River Generating Station in Alexandria, Va., which provided backup capacity to balance the grid, hadn’t been shuttered.

It was one of 188 plant closures credited to former New York City Mayor Bloomberg’s activist “Beyond Coal” campaign which he has supported with $80 million in donations to the anti-fossil Sierra Club.

A far more damaging 2003 Northeast blackout resulted in costs of about $13 billion. Referring to the Clean Power Plan, the New York Independent Systems Operator (NYISO) now reports that EPA’s “inherently unreasonable” reductions “cannot be sustained while maintaining reliable electric service to New York City.” NYISO further projects unacceptable plan consequences which “no amount of flexibility can fix.”

States should collectively heed this reality. Rather than accept EPA’s dirty work, it’s imperative that federal hijacking of state sovereignty be resoundingly rejected.

Apr 29, 2015 | 2 comments | by

American Energy Renaissance Act — Why Oil and Gas Matter

The American Energy Renaissance Act of 2014 — a bill proposed by Senator and now presidential candidate, Ted Cruz — proposes many drastic changes to the status quo surrounding energy and environmental regulations, some of which include:

  • Giving only states the right to regulate hydraulic fracturing
  • Preventing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, water vapor and nitrous oxide emissions
  • Repealing regulations on crude oil exports

Passage of the bill would be lauded by energy proponents, and while as a whole it would be no victory for traditional environmentalists, one of its provisions stands out, as it seeks to phase out engine-damaging ethanol fuel and create a higher standard for fuel economy. One can only truly understand the magnitude of improving fuel economy across the board by first looking at CO2 emissions by source:

Greenhouse Gas Emission

Transportation, which is second only to the electric power sector in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, could see significant long-term reduction in emissions while creating a surplus in disposable income for Americans and business owners. Notably, passage of the bill does not imply that American oil companies would be at a significant disadvantage due to the simple fact that it would open a whole new niche for American crude in the international economy.

Energy CO2 Emissions

Also striking is coal’s share of carbon dioxide emissions in the electric power industry — for coal’s actual share in energy generation as seen below, it seems almost unwarranted:

Electric Power Generation

Natural gas, while still not yet as widespread as coal, is very cost competitive, with liquid natural gas (LNG) at less than $10 per British thermal unit (Btu) while normal gas flirts with numbers around and below $5. Furthermore, if natural gas cannibalized market share from the coal sector — as is likely given the amount of continuing regulations on coal — it would help both the economy and the environment. Indeed, the Energy Information Administration asserts that for every million Btu generated, coal can release between 214 and 228 pounds of CO2 while natural gas creates almost half at 117 pounds per million Btu. While opponents of natural gas could cite its past price volatility, the past 5 years have been quite stable and the fracking boom is no reason to believe that the energy will be subject to much variance, at least not besides cyclical winter-heating and summer-cooling fluctuations, which coal can also be subject to. On the contrary, the market for coal is either becoming too expensive due to relentless regulation or disappearing altogether, especially abroad in developed countries.

The consumer free market response to any good or service in production is to demand quality proportional to whatever price level that consumer is willing and able to pay. With time, more countries are joining the ranks of developed nations who — like the U.S. — are characterizing themselves as more than willing to pay premiums on energy for better environmental quality. Additionally, natural gas has a history of matching or even beating domestic coal prices in the private sector, while mounting pressure on the public sector is slowly opening the international markets for both gas and oil.

Apr 08, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

Wyoming Congresswoman to Wrangle Federal Overreach

Rep. Cynthia Lummis, a Republican from Wyoming and the new chair of the Interior Subcommittee of the House Oversight Reform Committee, says she is determined to provide strict oversight of President Barack Obama’s energy and environment policies and scale back what she believes is federal overreach.

With oversight of the EPA, the Interior Department, the Energy Department, and the Agricultural Department, amid an increasing number of executive actions and accusations of departmental mismanagement and misconduct, Lummis has plenty of work ahead.

Wyoming Water

Lummis argues the administration went too far in attempting to control water use under the Clean Water Act. In response, she co-sponsored H.R.5078, the Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, a bill intended to limit the EPA’s reach under the Clean Water Act. Regarding this bill, Loomis said in a press statement,

In Wyoming, water is our single most precious natural resource, which we guard jealously and without which our communities and economies could not survive. The agency is stretching the law to the point of breaking it, claiming jurisdiction over every pond, ditch, and stream in Wyoming no matter how small or isolated.… This legislation gives state and local governments a long overdue seat at the table and ensures Congress has final say over what water is and is not subject to the Clean Water Act.

The Democrat-controlled Senate did not vote on the bill in 2014. With Republicans in control of both the House and Senate in 2015, the bill is likely to pass this year. Whether President Obama would sign the bill or veto it is an open question.

Advocating Spending Cuts

Lummis has also set her sights on reining in government spending. She drafted a bill requiring federal workforce downsizing through attrition, to save an estimated $35 billion over five years. “We’ve racked up over $18 trillion in debt simply because Washington has no idea when to stop spending,” Lummis said. Her bill, the Federal Workforce Reduction Through Attrition Act, would limit hiring of new employees as older ones retire, reducing the number of federal employees without forcing anyone one out of a job.

She also plans investigations into alleged corruption, bullying of whistleblowers, and general impropriety in the Chemical Safety Board and EPA.

Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, says Lummis’s oversight could be just the breath of fresh air federal agencies need. “The Obama administration has been bypassing Congress and imposing far-reaching regulations, with Capitol Hill either unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Rep. Lummis will now have a friendly Senate to work with to rein in the administrative regulatory state,” he said.

If members of Congress, as well as state and local governments, want to avoid being relegated to being little more than decorative potted plants, they should follow the example set by Rep. Lummis and aggressively oppose further usurpation of their power by Washington bureaucrats.

Feb 25, 2015 | Leave a Comment | by

EPA Final Rule Revising Definition of Solid Waste

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule on the definition of solid waste will become effective on July 13, 2015. Perhaps the biggest revision in the rule is EPA’s withdrawal of the transfer-based exclusion codified in the 2008 rule. In its place, EPA created the “verified recycler exclusion.” This new provision requires that all recyclers operating under this provision have RCRA permits or obtain variances prior to reclaiming hazardous secondary materials. Factors in the new provision:

  • hazardous secondary material must provide a useful contribution to the product or recycling process
  • recycling process must produce a valuable product or intermediate
  • hazardous secondary material must be managed as a valuable commodity
  • recycled product must be comparable to a legitimate product or intermediate

According to analysis conducted by Bergeson & Campbell, PC:

The rule retains the exclusion for hazardous secondary materials that are legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator (generator-controlled exclusion), but adds several conditions to the exclusion, including notification and recordkeeping requirements and emergency preparedness and response conditions. EPA also modified the transfer-based exclusion by adding several conditions, including one that recyclers have financial assurance in place to manage the materials left behind when the facility closes. An addition to the rule is the remanufacturing exclusion, which exempts certain higher-value solvents transferred from one manufacturer to another for the purpose of extending the useful life of the solvent by remanufacturing the spent solvent back into commercial grade solvent.

Feb 02, 2015 | 1 comment | by
« Previous Page — Next Page »