1 August 2014
In the News
Former Employees Allege Widespread Illegality at Taxpayer-Backed Solar Company Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 31 July 2014
Solar Power: Is There a Business Case? Philip Dowd, WattsUpWithThat, 31 July 2014
Is EPA Really Interested in Your Criticism? Nicolas Loris, The Daily Signal, 30 July 2014
In Search of Real Environmentalism Ben Acheson, Master Resource, 30 July 2014
Senate Report Details
Chris Prandoni, Forbes, 30 July 2014
EPA Regulations a Dark, Costly Chapter in Our History Paul Driessen, Investor
William Yeatman, GlobalWarming.org, 29 July 2014
College Professor Uses English Class To Push Global Warming Samantha Reinis, Campus Reform, 29 July 2014
Average Price of Electricity Climbs to All-Time Record Terence Jeffrey, CNSNews, 29 July 2014
News You Can Use
Study: Ozone Regulation Would Cost $2.2 Trillion
EPA’s impending ozone regulation cou
ld cost $2.2 trillion, reduce the gross domestic product by $3.4 trillion, and eliminate 2.9 million jobs between 2017 and 2014, according to a study
published this week by the National Association of Manufacturers.
Inside the Beltway
William Yeatman
EPA’s Climate Regulations Take Center Stage in
House of Representatives
This was the C
ongress’s last week before the A
ugust recess, and there were two House hearings given to
EPA’s
proposed Clean Air Act regulations for greenhouse gases from existing power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan. On Tuesday morning, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held
a hearing to get input from all five members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on
how EPA’s rule would affect the nation’s electricity grid
. My colleague Marlo Lewis reported on
the hearing at globalwarming.org; his take-away is the rule would fundamentally overhaul the
electric system. Regarding electric reliability in particular, it bears noting that
EPA’s analysis—
which has proven to be unrealistically optimistic
—
concedes that the rule would threaten reliability in New England, Florida, and Gulf States. The reality is likely much worse. On Wednesday morning, I attended a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held
a hearing on “EPA’s Carbon Plan: Failure by Design.” Panelists were Jeffrey Holmstead
(partner, Bracewell & Giuliani), Charles McConnell (executive director, Energy & Environment Initiative), David Cash (Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality), and Gregory Sopkin (partner, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer LLP). McConnell delivered the best exchanges. During his opening statement, for example, he held
up a dime, and noted that EPA’s Clean Power Plan would li
mit sea level rise by an amount commensurate with 1/3
rd
the thickness of the coin.
However, his most impactful testimony pertained to EPA’s inability to work with other agencies.
Before resigning in early 2013, McConnell was assistant secretary for fossil energy at the Energy Department. This is the office responsible for facilitating federal assistance in the development of carbon capture and sequester (CCS) technology. In fact, EPA required CCS technology in its controversial carbon rule for new coal-fired power plants
, so you’d think that EPA would’
ve welcomed collabor
ation with McConnell’s
office. Alas, you’d be wrong. McConnell
told the committee that “a true collaborative effort would have been far different from wh
at I
observed.” According to Mr. McConnell, EPA viewed the interagency process as a “box
-
checking exercise” and he called the agency’s attitude “disingenuous.”
McConnell’s account raises troubling issues. For starters, EPA has no functional expertise in
CCS technology. It is, therefore, strange that the agency would spurn input from a federal office that does possess such expertise. EPA
’s failure to do so
suggests incompetence, and it perhaps explains why the regulation is rife with legal flaws.
Taking a step back, his testimony makes me won
der if there’s
anyone
with whom EPA works well, other than environmental special interests (of course). After all, the Department of Energy
is a fellow federal agency. They
’re peers, yet EPA refused to get along.
Moreover, we know that
to be the agency’s partners under the cooperative federalism framework established by the