8 August 2014
In the News
James Taylor, Forbes, 7 August 2014
Energy Efficiency: Two Narratives Jim Clarkson, Master Resource, 6 August 2014
The Amazing Marcellus Shale Gas Boom Mark Perry, AEIdeas, 5 August 2014
Risky Business: The Best Global Warming Alarmism Money Can Buy Paul Chesser, National Legal and Policy Center , 5 August 2014
EPA Ozone Rule Could Be Most Expensive Regulation in U.S. History Daren Bakst & Katie Tubb, The Daily Signal, August 4 2014
How Endangered Species Act Litigation Means Big Money for Environmental Groups Sean Higgins, Washington Examiner , 4 August 2014
Our Weird Energy Politics Patrick J. Michaels, National Review, 4 August 2014
News You Can Use
Report: EPA Is the Problem
According to a report released this week by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, between 2000 and
2013, the 30 most expensive executive branch regulations have an annual cost of $110 billion. Of this total, $90 billion per year (81%) is attributable to 17 EPA rules.
Inside the Beltway
William Yeatman
EPA Meddles Needlessly in Corpus Christi LNG Export Project
EPA this week sent an obnoxious letter to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that threatens to needlessly tie up the Corpus Christi Liquefied Natural Gas Project in court. Due to a renaissance in the domestic oil and gas business, energy producers are eager to participate in the global market. To this end, they are proposing export terminals for liquefied natural gas. One such proposal is for a project in Corpus Christi, Texas. FERC is responsible for authorizing the siting and construction of onshore and near-shore LNG import or export facilities. As such, the project developers for the Corpus Christi terminal need a FERC permit. However, before any federal agency can complete any action, including permitting, it must perform an environmental impact analysis of the action. This requirement results from the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act. Accordingly, on June 13, 2014, FERC completed a draft environmental impact analysis of the Corpus Christi project, in accordance with its NEPA responsibilities. The document is almost
500 pages long of detailed, technical analysis, but EPA alleges it’s not up to snuff. On Monday, the agency sent a letter alleging that FERC’s analysis did not fully consider the project’s adverse impact on “environmental justice, wetland, indirect effects and greenhouse gas emissions.” Substantively, EPA’s criticisms are a joke. “Environmental justice” is as mushy a concept as
they come; in practice, it means that poor people live in the vicinity of the project. In fact, the
project’s primary impact on poor people in Corpus Christi is that it would engender more wealth
creation, economic activity, and jobs.
EPA’s allegation “regarding” wetlands is sim
ilarly silly. This is because the project is subject to
Clean Water Act §401certification by the States, ensuring it won’t degrade any waterways. It is
also subject to Clean Water Act §404 permits issued jointly by the Army Corps of Engineers and EPA. Ther
e are simply no grounds for EPA to object to the project’s impact on wetlands. It’s a
false premise.
The agency’s claim that FERC failed to consider greenhouse gases is also flat
-
wrong. FERC’s
analysis went so far as to calculate the greenhouse gas emissions from the ships coming to and
from the terminal. The project, moreover, must comply with EPA’s climate regulations. Again, there’s no basis for EPA to object. Of course, constructive criticism wasn’t the agency’s purpose to begin with. As I noted above
, environmental special interests use the environmental review process to litigate endlessly.
EPA’s letter may be substantively barren, but it nonetheless gives green groups further cause to
sue.