You are here: Home / Archives for Marita Noon

The “Yes, You Can” Vs. “No, You Can’t” Energy Plan

August 30, 2012 by 1 Comment

Obama Romney SC The “Yes, you can” vs. “No, you can’t” energy plan

President Obama’s energy policies have kept investment and jobs out of America; Romney’s energy plan can bring money and jobs back. Analysts are picking apart Romney’s 21-page energy plan that was introduced in Hobbs, New Mexico, on Thursday. Is energy independence by 2020 possible, or is it, as the Financial Times posited, “an act of hubris”? More important than whether or not his energy play is realistic is the international implications of his “independence” assertion and how he plans to get there.

As the news coverage reminds us, “Every US president since Richard Nixon has set an objective of reducing the country’s reliance on foreign oil, and most of them have failed.”

President Obama’s approach has been to “end the age of oil.” To that end, he has poured billions of dollars into green energy projects—many of which were risky investments that have now failed or are headed for failure. His approach has done nothing to reduce our reliance on foreign oil—though we are importing less due to the bad economy and high prices (and the new oil boom presently centered on North Dakota.) To companies looking to invest in any kind of extractive endeavor, his policies have screamed “You can’t!”

Read more at EPAabuse.com. By Marita Noon.

Photo credit: Cain and Todd Benson (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: News From The Web

Where Will You Be When The Lights Go Out In America?

June 6, 2012 by 7 Comments
Green Lightbulb Where will you be when the lights go out in America?

 

The passage of time is marked with milestones. We each know where we were when President Kennedy was shot, when the Berlin Wall came down, and on the morning of 9-11. If we continue on the current course, you’ll be telling your grandchildren where you were the night the lights went out in America.

America’s energy policy is being dominated by environmentalists’ priorities—regardless of the impact to the American economy, individual communities, or economically-challenged citizens. The plans to shut down or limit America’s abundant, available, and affordable energy are organized, coordinated, and effective. The results will be “lights out in America”—a dim future.

On May 30, the Wall Street Journal alerted us to the Sierra Club’s new campaign aimed at killing the natural gas industry: “Beyond Natural Gas.” WSJ reports: “This is no idle threat. The Sierra Club has deep pockets funded by liberal foundations and knows how to work the media and politicians. The lobby helped to block new nuclear plants for more than 30 years, it has kept much of the U.S. off-limits to oil drilling, and its ‘Beyond Coal’ campaign has all but shut down new coal plants. One of its priorities now will be to make shale gas drilling anathema within the Democratic Party.”

How do they think we will power America? With intermittent, ineffective, and uneconomical wind and solar energy.

Why are the Sierra Club, et al, able to wield so much power? The Obama administration is friendly to their cause. Many of the agencies regulating domestic energy development are staffed with personnel culled from within the ranks of the environmental movement. And, they are not shy about their biases—as was revealed in the now famous “crucify” comment. They also use their vast resources to sue, and sue often. As a new report from the Kentucky Coal Association (KCA) reveals, they don’t just sue the coal miners and the coal-fueled power plants, they sue the EPA to force new standards which are often unattainable—thereby effectively stopping all use of coal. (Remember, natural gas is the next target.)

The EPA, then, goes around standard operating procedures to do the bidding of their environmental buddies.

In Kentucky, hundreds of individual coal mining permits are typically approved each year. The application process has been in place for years. Companies applying for permits know the rules and applications are submitted accordingly. If a rule change is to be made, there is a process that includes a series of public hearings and industry input—providing participation for all parties. When a new rule is implemented, it often has a phase-in period and involved parties can prepare as they know about it far in advance.

However, Lisa Jackson’s EPA isn’t constrained by rulemaking policy.

On April 1, 2010, without reason or science, public notice or opportunity for public comment, the EPA issued “Interim Guidance on Clean Water Act (CWA) procedures for Appalachian surface mines”—which initially applied to only six states: Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Lisa Jackson acknowledged that few—if any—mines would be able to comply with the new benchmark set to limit wastewater discharges from surface coal mining to instream conductivity levels of 500 micro-siemens. Even if you do not understand the conductivity level of instream micro-siemens, you can grasp that the levels called for in the “guidance” are lower than levels found in nature.

In March 2010, 27 permits were issued under the known procedures. Since the “guidance” came out, without warning, on April 1, no new permits have been issued. One company was offered a permit with the 500 micro-siemens limit applicable to every phase of mining beginning on day one. The “virgin” stream was tested before any mining operations commenced and was found to naturally have 1200 micro-siemens. The company would have been in violation before they ever started. On July 21, 2011, the “interim guidance” was replaced with a “final guidance” which suggested that conductivity levels be 300 or less instead of the previous 500—which was already unattainable. Even expensive bottled water doesn’t meet the standards the EPA has set for discharges from coal mining.

For more than 2 years, the Appalachian economy has suffered the loss of hundreds of mines, equaling thousands of direct potential jobs, as a result of this “guidance”—which is not a “rule” but is being treated as one.

In October 2010, the KCA filed a lawsuit against the EPA contending that the issuance of the “interim guidance” violated the Administrative Procedures Act and the CWA by ignoring public notice and comment rulemaking requirements, and unlawfully usurping the state’s role in establishing water quality standards under CWA. That suit has been consolidated with a similar suit filed in West Virginia and with National Mining Association litigation and has been transferred to the federal court in the District of Columbia; the case is scheduled to be heard July 11.

Meanwhile, applications for individual coal mining permits have been denied. Shortly after the new “guidance” was issued on April 1, 2010, The Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet (KEEC) proposed to issue 21 permits for new and surface mines in Eastern Kentucky that did not include qualification for the sudden “guidance,” but met all prior imposed limitations and were consistent with previous applications that were granted permits. The state has the authority to issue permits and the EPA has oversight authority. In September 2010, the EPA issued specific objections to all 21 permit applications—thereby preventing their issuance, blocking jobs and revenues.

On July 1, 2011, the KEEC proposed another 19 permits for new or expanded surface mining in Eastern Kentucky. These permits included a number of enhancements to assure protection of aquatic life. In late September 2011, the EPA objected to all 19 permits—but did not specify the deficiencies. There are currently 36 applications pending; the other four have been withdrawn with the potential investment presumably going elsewhere.

In accordance with the CWA, if the EPA has specific objections, the applicant can request a hearing to challenge the EPA’s decision. The KEEC requested a hearing in December of 2010. Finally, after an 18-month wait, EPA has scheduled hearings for June 5 and 7. The Kentucky Coal Association estimates that just the 19 permits the EPA blocked last September have cost $123,861,000 in state coal severance taxes, 3,800 Kentucky coal jobs, and the production of 125,476,000 tons of coal—all while America is in economic crisis.

Additionally, the micro-siemens benchmark was slated to apply to six states but was pulled back to just two: Kentucky and West Virginia. Why were these states singled out? If micro-siemens were important, if clean water was really the issue, shouldn’t the “guidance” apply nationwide? Interestingly, the two states targeted for the new rules may be victims of retribution. Neither Kentucky nor West Virginia went blue in the 2008 election and are not likely to in 2012. The Democratic primaries in both Kentucky and West Virginia were an embarrassment to the Obama re-election effort. In Kentucky, “uncommitted” got 42% of the vote and in West Virginia, prisoner Keith Judd got 41%. Obama nemesis Mitch McConnell hails from Kentucky and West Virginia’s Democratic Senator Joe Manchin made waves when he ran a campaign ad in which he picked up a rifle and shot a target labeled “cap and trade bill”—which was an Obama campaign promise. Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Virginia were removed from the micro-siemens guidance. They are blue states that are important to President Obama’s re-election. Once again, it appears that the Obama administration is putting electoral posturing ahead of energy production. (If Obama gets re-elected, you can be sure the “guidance” will apply to more states and other industries.)

The micro-siemens guidance is applied under the CWA section 402. While other industries are governed by section 402, the micro-siemens guidance applies only to coal, and only in two states. The selective application indicates that it isn’t really about the water.

The Sierra Club doesn’t want America’s abundant coal resources used in America. Their efforts have already contributed to the announced closure of 100 US coal-fueled power plants and reduced demand for coal. “Sales to Midwestern power plants have slumped, as has the market price of coal, dropping so suddenly that many local mines are cutting back hours or closing,” reports the New York Times. “The anger toward Washington is palpable.” In the May 29 NYT article, Chris Lacy, an executive at Licking River Resources Inc., said “layoffs among his 350 miners—in Magoffin County, where unemployment is already 17.5 percent — are inevitable.” Addressing the increasing regulations against coal, Lacy says the “concerns are overblown.” He sees them as “a conspiracy by environmentalists and the Obama administration to destroy the way of life here in Kentucky.”

The Sierra Club wants to keep coal in the ground and out of international markets where coal- fueled power plants are being built faster than they are being abandoned in the US. They are filing lawsuits against mining companies to prevent extraction and claiming settlements which include their legal fees. Environmental attorneys are among the highest paid—getting double and triple what veterans’ or seniors’ advocates receive. This hurts not only the local economies, such as the one supported by Licking River Resources, but it also does harm to the US economy, as selling US products overseas helps our trade deficit.

If you are tired of the undue influence the environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, hold over your energy use and cost—they proudly state that their attack on coal is “just the tip of the iceberg” (natural gas is next), stand with Kentucky against the singular attack. A pre-hearing rally is being held in Frankfort, KY, on June 5 from 5-7 PM between the Capitol Plaza Hotel and the Frankfort Convention Center where elected officials, pro-coal advocates, and invited guests will speak about the dangers of the EPA’s actions to Kentucky jobs. If you can’t make the rally, you can still offer written comment (Docket ID:EPA-HQ-OW-2012-0315).

If we do not stand up to these senseless attacks on the American way of life, our energy freedom, and our economic security, we will be telling our grandchildren where we were the night the lights went out in America.

Photo Credit: Victory of the People (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Why Is Panetta Beating The War Drums On Climate Change?

May 18, 2012 by 2 Comments

Leon Panetta SC Why Is Panetta Beating The War Drums On Climate Change?

Global warming has been off the energy-news radar as high gas prices have usurped the spotlight—however Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has brought it back. “Defense Secretary?” you might ask. “Not Energy Secretary Steven Chu or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson?”

No. It was Leon Panetta, who, at an Environmental Defense Fund reception on Thursday May 3, declared “The area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security.” (Are we going to declare war on countries like Canada for backing out of the Kyoto climate change commitments, or China and India for never supporting them in the first place?)

Panetta’s comments tell us two things. First, as I’ve stated in aprevious column, the environmental community is important to the president’s re-election efforts, and, second, global warming will be part of the debate in the coming months leading up to November.

President Obama campaigned with the promise that he would slow the rise of the oceans and enact cap-and-trade legislation. Talk of manmade climate change was central to his election efforts. Now we know it will still be a part of the re-election rhetoric.

Likewise, candidate Romney has also supported the theory of manmade climate change and was part of the founding of one of the original cap-and-trade programs. However, Romney has now, after seeing new data, admitted that he doesn’t know whether or not man’s activity plays a role in climate change.

Both President Obama and Governor Romney accepted what was the prevalent thinking on climate change at the time. Many believed that the “science” was “settled.” Scientists like NASA’s James Hansen and Penn State’s Michael Mann publicly proclaimed that global warming was a threat to all of humanity and the earth. But that was then. Leon Panetta’s comment reminds us that the Obama position on climate change has remained static, while Romney’s has matured with the latest findings.

Within the past few weeks, James Lovelock, a scientist and climate-change alarmist, who in 2006 wrote, “Before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable,” admitted he was wrong and acknowledges that he’d been “extrapolating too far.”

Lovelock puts himself in the same “alarmist” category as Al Gore. Now he sees that “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books—mine included—because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened.” Lovelock continues. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now. The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising—carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that.” Despite rising carbon dioxide, sea levels are dropping—though it is doubtful that President Obama can take any credit for it since his promised cap-and-trade plan did not make it through the Democratic controlled Congress.

As Lovelock confessed, the dire predictions haven’t come true.

The polar bear, the mascot of the climate change crisis, believed to be drowning due to melting ice caps, is flourishing. Drikus Gissing, director of wildlife management for the Nunavut region, told theGlobe and Mail, “The bear population is not in crisis as people believed. There is no doom and gloom.” The Canadian study Gissing referenced found that the polar bear population was 66 percent higher than expected.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2007 that “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate continues, the likelihood of their disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.” Then, in 2010, they had to retract the estimate, admitting that it was based on “dubious scientific sources.” Time Magazine called the entire episode “a black eye for the IPCC and for the climate-science community as a whole.” Now, there is a new study reported in Nature that points out that the contribution of melting ice “is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.”

As the Himalayan story exposes, some of the science behind the manmade climate change hysteria is “dubious.” And some is the result of scientific misconduct, as was revealed in the Climategate scandal that exposed falsified records and silenced scientists.

Add to the above the impact the general public is beginning to feel as climate change mitigation strategies—such as wind and solar power—are hitting their utility bills, and the disgust they feel over the president’s insistence that more taxpayer dollars be thrown at an increasing number of failing so-called renewable energy firms, and it is easy to see why support for manmade global warming theory has waned.

And, one has to question why the president is entrenched in ideology that has now been shown to be demonstrably deceptive. The issue of costly climate change mitigation schemes is about more than just our presidential candidates. More than half of the states have mandated requirements for expensive renewable energy that raises electricity rates for everyone. Each legislator who voted for the cost-increasing standards needs to be as honest as Romney, and admit that they were wrong and reverse the policies, or be voted out of office. Unless that happens, energy prices will continue to climb and will stunt the struggling economic recovery.

The combination of new data, dire predictions that were no more accurate than a carnival fortune teller, scientific misconduct, and harsh economic impacts don’t add up to a strong foundation for a presidential campaign—yet, as Leon Panetta exposed, President Obama continues to cling to claims of manmade climate change crisis while Romney, like former “alarmist” James Lovelock, admits he was wrong.

Thousands of scientists never believed the predictions put forth by computer models, and many more, like Lovelock, have begun to question the assumptions. Later this month, hundreds of them, from across the globe, will converge in Chicago for the world’s largest gathering of “skeptics.” There they will discuss and debate the science.

Over the next six months, we are bound to hear about climate change as an issue. Romney will likely be called a flip-flopper, while President Obama stands firm on his convictions—with one sounding shameful and the other honorable. In contrast, I believe it is honorable to accept new input and admit when we are wrong and shameful to ignore new evidence, putting ideology ahead of reality.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Wind Energy: The Next Green Black-Hole

May 17, 2012 by Leave a Comment
Wind Turbine Support Group SC Wind Energy: The Next Green Black Hole

The wind energy industry has been having a hard time. The taxpayer funding that has kept it alive for the last twenty years is coming to an end, and those promoting the industry are panicking.

Perhaps this current wave started when one of wind energy’s most noted supporters, T. Boone Pickens, “Mr. Wind,” in an April 12 interview on MSNBC said, “I’m in the wind business…I lost my ass in the business.”

The industry’s fortunes didn’t get any better when on May 4, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) wrote an editorial titled, “Gouged by the wind,” in which they stated: “With natural gases not far from $2 per million BTU, the competitiveness of wind power is highly suspect.” Citing a study on renewable energy mandates, the WSJ says: “The states with mandates paid 31.9% more for electricity than states without them.”

Then, last week the Financial Times did a comprehensive story: “US Renewables boom could turn into a bust” in which they predict the “enthusiasm for renewables” … “could fizzle out.” The article says: “US industry is stalling and may be about to go into reverse. …Governments all over the world have been curbing support for renewable energy.”

Michael Liebreich of the research firm Bloomberg New Energy Finance says: “With a financially stressed electorate, it’s really hard to go to them and say: ‘Gas is cheap, but we’ve decided to build wind farms for no good reason that we can articulate.’” Christopher Blansett, who is a top analyst in the alternative-energy sector in the Best on the Street survey, says, “People want cheap energy. They don’t necessarily want clean energy.”

It all boils down to a production tax credit (PTC) that is set to expire at the end 2012. Four attempts to get it extended have already been beaten back so far this year—and we are only in the fifth month. TheFinancial Times reports: “Time-limited subsidy programmes…face an uphill battle. The biggest to expire this year is the production tax credit for onshore wind power, the most important factor behind the fourfold expansion of US wind generation since 2006. Recent attempts in Congress to extend it have failed.”

According to the WSJ, “The industry is launching into a lobbying blitz.” The “2012 Strategy” from the American Wind Energy Association includes:

·        “To maximize WindPAC’s in?uence, WindPAC will increase the number of fundraisers we hold for Members of Congress.”

·        “Continue the Iowa caucus program to ensure the successful implanting of a pro-wind message into the Republican presidential primary campaign.”

·        “Respond quickly to unfavorable articles by posting comments online, using the AWEA blog and twitter, and putting out press releases.”

·        “Continue to advocate for long term extension of PTC and ITC option for offshore wind.”

·        “AWEA requested a funding level of $144.2 million for FY 2012 for the Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Program, an increase of $17.3 million above the President’s Congressional budget request.”

A wind turbine manufacturer quoted in the Financial Times article says, “If the PTC just disappears, then the industry will collapse.” Regarding United Technologies plans to sell its wind turbine business, chief financial officer Greg Hayes admitted: “We all make mistakes.”

Despite twenty years of taxpayer funding, according to the Financial Times, “Most of these technologies are unable to stand on their own commercially, particularly in competition with a resurgent natural gas industry that has created a supply glut and driven prices to 10-year lows.” The WSJ opines: “the tax subsidy has sustained the industry on a scale that wouldn’t have been possible if they had to follow the same rules as everyone else.” A level playing field would mean that wind developers would lose the exemptions from environmental and economic laws.

It is the fear of having to play by “the same rules as everyone else”—like the free market does— that must have propelled the anti-fossil fuel Checks and Balances Project to dig deep to unearth a “confidential” document. The brainstorming document was designed to trigger conversation during an initial meeting of grassroots folks with a common goal—the document’s author didn’t even join us and his ideas received little attention. The meeting was February 1 and 2. I was there. But suddenly, on May 8, our little meeting is in the news.

Many of us who were at the meeting received calls from a variety of publications including The National Journal, The Washington Times and Bloomberg News—none of whom ran with the story (after talking to a number of us, the Bloomberg reporter concluded “I don’t think we’re writing a story about this”)—andThe Guardian who did. The Guardian story was picked up and expanded on in Environment & Energy (the reporter did talk to several of us), HuffPost, Tree Hugger, Think Progress’ Climate Progress, and others. (Note: Climate Progress and Tree Hugger remove any comment in opposition to wind energy as soon as it is posted.) From there, some form of the story is all over the Internet.

The wind energy industry panic explains the sudden interest, but why our little group?

Washington Examiner columnist, Timothy Carney, provides the answer: “AWEA plans ‘continued deployment of opposition research through third parties to cause critics to have to respond,’ the battle plan states. In other words: When people attack AWEA’s subsidies, AWEA might feed an unflattering story on that person to some ideological or partisan media outlet or activist group.” We are the people who have attacked the subsidies and AWEA has, through a “third party” fed “an unflattering story” to a “partisan media outlet.” Our collaborative actions have helped block the PTC extension efforts.

A common thread in the news stories is that we are really an oil-and-gas funded entity. They’ve tied us to the Koch Brothers. We all wish. Apparently they can’t believe that individuals and local groups canthink for themselves and impact public policy without a puppet master telling us what to do and say.

In fact, the group has no funding. As we began to email back and forth over the sudden reporter interest, one meeting attendee quipped: “My trip was funded, in part, by MY brother, Paul, who donated frequent flyer miles for my trip. I can assure you that my brother is not part of the Koch family. I paid for the rest of the trip out of my own pocket.” Yet, the reporters seemed determined to find a funding link. I told the Bloomberg reporter that we each paid our own way, that the meeting was held in a budget hotel outside of DC (unlike the AWEA meeting held at the prestigious La Costa Resort & Spa in Carlsbad, CA), and that we each had to pay for our own transportation, food, and lodging. My comments never made it into print. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am the executive director of companionorganizations that do receive funding from oil and gas companies and individual donors. But I, like the others, was invited as an individual, not as a member of any organization.

Additionally, we are not even a formal group. We met to consider forming a group. The “leaked” memo, addresses finding a group that might absorb us, affiliate with us, or align with us.

Attendees brought their individual issues, observations, and successes. Each had valid insights to contribute. Some viewed health impacts as the most important ammunition. Others, economics. Some, setbacks or bird deaths or land use. Others, including the meeting’s organizer, John Droz, believe that the science—or lack thereof, is the best weapon. There are so many reasons to oppose wind that come down to government use of taxpayer money to support something that raises electricity prices based on the failed concept of man-made global warming. As a result of the meeting, we now know we are not alone, and we can call on one another for insight and advice.

We owe a debt of gratitude to Gabe Elsner, a co-director of the Checks and Balances Project. Without his discovery and subsequent exposure of the “document,” we’d still be just loosely affiliated individuals and small citizens’ groups. The attack has emboldened us and helped others find us! A representative from the Blue Mountain Alliance sent Droz an email stating: “I probably need to send them a thank you note for leading me to you and your efforts.”

After the murmurings became known, one of the meeting attendees, Paul Driessen, wrote a detailed and data-filled column, “Why we need to terminate Big Wind subsidies,” which has garnered more than 700 Facebook “likes” on Townhall.com. (To give perspective, I am pleased if I get 50 “likes.” Each “like” generally represents thousands of readers.) In just a few days, his column is all over the Internet.

Wind energy has more opposition than most people realize, and Elsner, who has served as the “third party” in the AWEA strategy, has allowed us to find one another. While a few attendees at the DC meeting were concerned about all the publicity, attorney Brad Tupi, who has represented citizens victimized by wind energy projects, responded: “I would plead guilty to participating in a meeting of concerned citizens opposed to wasteful, unproven, inefficient wind energy. I would agree that we are interested in coordinating with other reputable organizations, and I personally would be honored to work with Heartland Institute and others.”

If you do not support industrial, tax-payer-funded, wind-energy projects that are promoted based on ideology and emotion rather than facts and sound science, you can benefit from our affiliation. Droz has a wonderful presentation full of helpful information. A few of the websites from the meeting attendees include: Illinois Wind Watch, Coalition for Sensible Siting, Energy Integrity Project, and Citizen Power Alliance.

The lesson to be learned from the attack on these hard-working citizens is that the little people can make a difference! We’ve got the subsidy-seeking, wind-energy supporters running scared—along with the crony capitalism that accompanies them. Remember, “If the PTC just disappears”—meaning if we do not keep giving them taxpayer dollars—“then the industry will collapse.” Your phone call or email to aSenator or Congressman, such as Steve King or Dave Reichert who recently came out in support of the PTC, can make a difference. Tell them, as the WSJ said, “If the party is serious about tax reform…it will vote to take wind power off the taxpayer dole.”

It is time for the AWEA and the politicians who support the PTC to explain why higher electricity costs, human health impacts, substantial loss of property values in rural communities, dead bats and birds, and increased national debt are good for America and her taxpayers.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Was The EPA’s Al Armendariz A Scapegoat?

May 3, 2012 by 3 Comments

Al Armendariz Was The EPAs Al Armendariz A Scapegoat?

Frequent readers of my column might be surprised to see that I am defending Al Armendariz, the newly resigned EPA Administrator of Region 6. In his recently revealed “crucify” comments, Armendariz was merely reflecting the view from the top—though the exact word choices may have been his own. Yet, Al, alone, is taking the fall. He resigned on April 30, and his resignation was immediately accepted by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson.

Yes, the above is my opinion. No, I do not have any special insight into the agency. What I do have is perspective and personal experience with similar top down attitudes as found in my state of residence: New Mexico.

New Mexico’s experience is a microcosm of what is happening in the EPA and, likely, every Obama administration agency.

From 2003 to 2011, Bill Richardson was the Governor of New Mexico. Despite being the Secretary of Energy during the Clinton administration (the job currently held by Stephen Chu), Bill Richardson governed with a decidedly anti-oil and -gas ideology (Sound familiar?). The economy of New Mexico is one of the worst in the country. We joke that we’d be on the bottom of every list if not for Arkansas. Our economy is largely dependent on our abundant oil and gas resources—though we also have significant amounts of coal and uranium.

A soon-to-be-released, carefully-documented book chronicles the impact of just one of Governor Richardson’s anti-oil and anti-gas policies and concludes that it “represents a financial loss to the state’s economy of approximately $6 billion.”

Bill Richardson came into office with a $1 billion budget surplus and left with a $653 million deficit. Yes, the national economic downturn happened in Richardson’s final years—but the bad economy remains today, and New Mexico’s Governor Martinez ended her fist year with a surplus of $250 million. The difference? The attitude at the top.

Governor Richardson appointed people to head agencies who reflected his political ideology, and they built a leadership team within the agency made up of people with shared viewpoints. Likewise, President Obama has done the same. When Governor Martinez came into office, she made changes at the top.

My personal research revealed a dramatic change in how the oil and gas industry was treated from one administration to the next—though the rules hadn’t changed. The difference was in the attitude. One administration used the rules and regulations as a hammer—pounding the industry until many ultimately gave up and left the state (taking their revenues with them) and the other used them as a guideline to work with the industry to help them work within the rules.

The difference plays out like this. With hundreds of drilling rigs in operation at any given time, an inspector looking for an infraction, regardless of how diligent an operator might be, can probably find something. Under an administration looking to “crucify” an industry, the infractions are met with fines and delays. When inspectors want to work with industry, they do not look the other way. Rather, they point out the perceived problem and give the operator time to fix it. Under this scenario, honest operators with a clean record are given guidance as to how to do the right thing. Repeat offenders are treated more harshly.

In the current “crucify” news story, Al is taking the fall—but it is really not his fault. The White House wants us to think he is a rogue representative, but similar scenarios have played out in regions other than the one he oversees. The problem is agency-wide—probably administration wide.

New Mexico lost $6 billion in revenue due to one rule designed to “crucify” an industry and benefit the administration and its friends. As the Obama administration “crucifies” the oil and gas industry to benefit its friends in renewables—specifically solar- the American economy is the loser. Untold billions of dollars and jobs have been lost, and we’ve had to borrow from China to make up the shortfall.

A true leader knows that he is responsible for the actions of everyone underneath him or her. Instead, Al has been sacrificed on Obama’s alter of spin.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: ,

Crucify All EPA Bureaucrats Whose “Philosophy” Is Based On Ideology And Emotion—Others Will Behave Better

April 30, 2012 by 1 Comment

EPA Crucify SC Crucify All EPA Bureaucrats Whose “Philosophy” Is Based On Ideology And Emotion—Others Will Behave Better
The revelation of the EPA’s “philosophy” used in their regulation of oil and gas companies—“crucify” and “make examples” of, just as the Romans crucified random citizens in areas they conquered to ensure obedience—provides proof of what many have known: policy decisions are made on ideology and emotion rather than fact, sound science, and economic or human impact. For this, we should all be grateful to Al Armendariz, EPA Administrator for Region 6. His honesty, in a 2010 video made public on April 26, allows us all a glimpse behind the shroud.

Armendariz has been making, according to Senator James Inhofe, “comments specifically intended to incite fear and sway public opinion against hydraulic fracturing.” In Thursday’s hearing, Inhofe says Amendariz frequently claimed a “danger of fire or explosion.” Inhofe cited the Parker County Texas case as the “most outrageous.” There, in 2010, Armendariz’s region issued an Emergency Administrative Order against Range Resources—overriding the Texas state regulators who were already investigating the claim that hydraulic fracturing was contaminating well water. “Along with this order, EPA went on a publicity barrage in an attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions,” Inhofe said.

The Emergency Administrative Order was dropped earlier this month, but was done, as Inhofe called it, by “strategically attempting to make these announcements as quietly as possible.”

Both the EPA and the White House are trying to distance themselves from the Armendariz comments. Cynthia Giles, the EPA’s assistant administrator in charge of enforcement said, “Inevitably, some will try to imply that the unfortunate and inaccurate words of one regional official represent this Agency’s policy. Rest assured that they do not—and no honest examination of our record could equate our commonsense approach with such an exaggerated claim.”

Yet, history shows that the Armendariz model is used more frequently than most would believe. Decisions are often made on ideology and emotion rather than fact, sound science, and economic or human impact. Those decisions are often walked back—making the future look more like the past. Two current examples include the decision to use “timid” approaches toward preventing malaria in Africa and Germany’s environmentalist-appeasing, post-Fukushima decision to shut down their nuclear plants.

More than 100 years ago, the source of malaria was determined to be the bite of the mosquito—rather than the “bad air” as previously assumed. As I chronicle in the DDT chapter of my book Energy Freedom, DDT had nearly eliminated malaria in the western world when the ideology and emotion of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring led to the ban of DDT—despite the faulty science, and detrimental economic and severe human impact. Since DDT was banned in 1972, malaria has become Africa’s largest killer. In the West African country of Sierra Leone, malaria accounts for more than 40 percent of outpatient mortality and is the top killer of children under five. Since the seventies, prevention has focused on “protecting people rather than halting mosquitoes: bed nets and drug systems prevail. Now the authorities want to return to eradication.” The new strategy calls for the indoor residual spraying of insecticides such as DDT, bendiocarb, and the newly reformulated chlorfenapyr. Indoor spraying pilot projects have shown success. In areas where the spraying has taken place, for the first time, malaria is no longer the top killer of children under five. Dr. Samuel Smith, manager of Sierra Leone’s malaria control program, reports that “a combination of spraying and bed nets has a better impact”—making the future look more like what worked in the past.

Imagine the lives that could have been saved in Africa if DDT was dealt with using fact, sound science, and economic or human impact rather than ideology and emotion.

In Germany, the future could look more like the past as well. Following the Fukushima nuclear accident, a decision was made to shut down 8 of its 17 nuclear reactors with the remainder being phased out within a decade—before their life expectancy is over. Critics of the Merkel administration, say it “never formulated a coherent strategy for switching to new forms of energy or for upgrading the country’s electricity grid.” The decision was motivated by ideology and emotion rather than fact, sound science, and economic or human impact.

One of the closed plants is Unterweser, located in the town of Kleinensiel. Maik Otholt, a Kleinensiel resident expressed his frustration with the decision: “Our facilities were serviced every year; they’re in perfect shape. Nothing ever went wrong. And so now what are we doing? We’re buying nuclear energy from France. Their plant is just over the border. And now we’re buying that expensive electricity. It’s crazy.”

To make up for the loss of electricity from the nuclear plants, Germany is now, as Maik Otholt said, importing nuclear-generated power. Before the closures, Germany had electricity to spare and sold it to other countries. Additionally, Germany is building or modernizing 84 power plants—and more than half of those will be run on fossil fuels including many on coal. The use of coal-fueled electricity generation has angered the very same environmentalists who cheered the nuclear plant closures.

Addressing Germany’s increased use of coal, Stefan Judisch, chief executive of RWE Supply & Trading, said, “If we were to replace (nuclear) baseload with renewable energies and gas, then electricity would become expensive.”

While environmentalists are touting the ideology of a carbon-free future, Germany has to face a reality that is far from a carbon-free future—making it look more like the past.

As the anti-fracking ideology and emotion continues to climb, remember the philosophy of Al Armendariz who punished to “ensure obedience” and the EPA’s “publicity barrage in an attempt to publicize its premature and unjustified conclusions.” In Texas, as well as Wyoming and Pennsylvania, the EPA has had to walk back the accusations as the science didn’t support them—but by then the public had already been swayed by the fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Don’t let ideology and emotion shape America’s energy future. It needs to be based on fact and sound science with consideration for the economic and human impacts.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Environmentalism: Less About Hugging Trees, More About Bringing America To Her Knees

April 23, 2012 by Leave a Comment

obama green face e1331313863689 Environmentalism: Less About Hugging Trees, More About Bringing America To Her KneesDespite his speechmaking touting an “all of the above” energy strategy, President Obama’s reelection could depend his willingness to stand in the way of developing America’s resources.

Back in November, at the time of the original Keystone XL pipeline decision, environmental groups threatened to pull their backing for Obama if he approved the pipeline. Michael Brune, executive director of America’s largest environmental group, the Sierra Club, is on record as saying that the President’s decision on Keystone would have “a very big impact” on how they funnel their resources—with the obvious implication being that they would not support the President if he didn’t do their bidding.

Other environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Environmental Defense Fund took a different tack but with the same goal. A press release from the Rainforest Action Network promised the President that if he denied Keystone, he would see a “surge of enthusiasm from the green base that supported you so strongly in the last election.”

Environmental groups clearly understand they have the ability to influence the President’s decisions based on their claims to support—or not support—his bid for a second term. So far, they must be pleased with his administration’s efforts. On Wednesday, April 18, leading environmental groups came out with their official endorsement of President Obama—“the earliest” the groups “have ever endorsed in a presidential election cycle.” According to The Hill, “The groups are planning a mix of advertising and on-the-ground work on Obama’s behalf.” However, Glenn Hurowitz, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, thinks the groups should have waited longer before endorsing the President. He believes the early endorsement removes the “greens’ leverage.”

Most pundits agree that the 2012 presidential election will be a hard fought, close race. In order to win, President Obama needs the four million votes from “greens” the groups represent—and they do not want increased domestic resource extraction.  According to BusinessWeek, funding from environmental groups is currently less than 50% of what it was through the same period in the 2008 campaign—one of the reasons cited: “renewing offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.”

Though receiving little press, the Obama administration is working hard to convince the “greens” that he is one of them.

The NRDC (one of the groups promising support if Obama does the right thing) has launched a major fundraising effort—aided by the actor Robert Redford, to block a proposed mine that would provide America with access to one of the largest known deposits of copper in the world. Copper is essential for electric transmission and America’s industrial future—and highly sought after by developing economies such as China. The land—already designated for mineral exploration and development—also contains gold, silver and molybdenum. Despite the fact that the Native Alaskans living near the proposed Pebble Mine site want the infrastructure and jobs the mine would provide, rich sport-fishermen and out of state environmental groups (NRDC is based in New York City) are claiming to “pressure the Obama administration to reject any permits that could allow Pebble Mine to move forward. And if necessary, we will challenge this disastrous project in federal court.” The fund raising letter states: “Only NRDC combines grassroots power with the legal clout of more than 400 attorneys.”

To date, there is no detailed plan or application submitted for a mine. The companies involved have already invested more than $400 million in research, studies, and field work but have not yet applied for federal approval. Pebble Limited Partnership’s CEO John Shively said, “I think in terms of the environmental side, I am relatively convinced that the technology is there for us to do what we need to do. Combining the technology with the economics, we have not gotten that far, and we have not finished designing.”

There are more than 65 different types of state and federal permits, certifications, and reviews that must take place before the Pebble project can move forward. Yet, the EPA is entertaining a “preemptive veto petition” which would prevent “due process,” deprive America of much needed resources and Alaskans of the economic security the project could bring to the remote region.

Test drilling for core samples at the mine site have been found to be nontoxic and up to municipal standards. The actual location of the mineral resource is farther away from the waters of Bristol Bay than Los Angeles is from San Diego. The EPA is currently conducting a watershed assessment on the potential impact of a large development project on the region that could easily have the effect of blocking any and all future development proposal, including construction of a community airport. The EPA’s assessment is expected to be released in a matter of weeks.

The EPA study, that pales in comparison to a multiyear $120 million environmental baseline review conducted by Pebble, is being used as a precursor for the agency to skip the established environmental review process and preemptively deny a 404 C Clean Water Act permit before the Pebble project has even applied for a permit. EPA preemptive action would be a first of its kind and would constitute a massive and devastating expansion of the administration’s environmental power.

In an April 18 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Senator Lisa Murkowski said, “I have encouraged all stakeholders to withhold judgment until 1) a detailed development plan is released for review and 2) all relevant analyses of that plan are completed. A preemptive veto, just like a preemptive approval, would be based purely upon speculation and conjecture. It would deprive relevant government agencies and all stakeholders of the specifics needed to take an informed position.” She concludes: “As the people of my state work to attract investment and create jobs, regulatory uncertainty is hampering those efforts and they need answers to questions about actions the EPA is considering.”

Opponents of the Pebble Mine project have asked, “Can science and engineering eliminate the risks posed by the Pebble Mine to Alaska’s economy? If the answer is yes, the backers should show how in a clear and unquestionable manner.” Yet, before the designs and plans are even complete, environmental groups like the NRDC have called for the project to be rejected—not based on science, but on emotional hyperbole and an anti-development agenda. Would the Pebble Partnership have invested more than $400 million if they didn’t think the technology was there to do what they need to do to meet the state and federal requirements?

The EPA’s preemptive actions in Alaska are just one example of the Obama administration’s attempts to prove to the greens that he is on their side. Another is the National Ocean Policy created through an executive order.

The order was signed nearly two years ago, but is only coming to light now because of the “potential this far-reaching policy has to hinder job creation because of the uncertainty it creates due to increased regulation.” Lawmakers, in an April 2 letter, are asking “to put the brakes on the Obama administration’s National Ocean Policy.” The letter, to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers (R-KY), asks the committee to “specifically prohibit the use of funds for the implementation of the National Ocean Policy.”

On April 3, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) explained the new policy as “a complicated bureaucratic scheme which includes a 27-member national ocean council; an 18-member governance coordinating committee; 10 national policies; nine regional planning bodies—each involving as many as 27 federal agencies as well as states and tribes; nine national priority objectives; nine strategic action plans; seven national goals for coastal marine spatial planning; and 12 guiding principles for coastal marine spatial planning. The administration claims that this whole National Ocean Policy is nothing more than an attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions. Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the federal government—through an executive order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘help’ us plan where activities can or cannot take place in our waters and inland.”

In an April 17 article written by award-winning investigative journalist Audrey Hudson and published in Human Events, Hudson opens: “President Barack Obama has an ambitious plan for Washington bureaucrats to take command of the oceans—and with it control over much of the nation’s energy, fisheries, even recreation in a move described by lawmakers as the ultimate power grab to zone the seas.” She continues, “The ocean policy has already impacted oil and gas development in the Mid and South Atlantic, where more environmental analysis is now required to determine whether new studies must also be conducted to determine its safety, according to Interior Department Secretary Ken Salazar.”

Not surprisingly, environmental groups support the policy. The Sierra Club hosts an “Activist Network” that includes the National Ocean Policy: “This project is to promote implementation of the National Ocean Policy through recruitment, education and engagement of Sierra Club Activists throughout the nation.” The NRDC “Switchboard” blog states: “The National Ocean Policy is a landmark policy that calls on us to evaluate all of the uses of the ocean—fishing, tourism, industry, military, energy—and identify how to manage these uses more sustainably.”

Rep. Bill Flores (R-TX) comments: “If you look at the catalyst for the entire initiative, it comes from the playbook of environmental groups that think the ocean ought to be controlled by the federal government.” Senator David Vitter (R-LA) adds, “This has largely been completely under the radar. And that is exactly the way the administration and their environmental allies want to do it—announce the administrative fiat is complete and that we have this new way of life that nobody knew was coming.”

Pebble Mine and the National Ocean Policy are just two of myriad possible examples of how the environmental organizations and the Obama administration are working together to change America. When you think of the environmental movement, realize they have gone way beyond hugging trees. They now want to bring America to its knees.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: , ,

America’s Oil Melting Pot Could Shrink The Trade Deficit & Boost The Declining Dollar — Without New Taxes

April 16, 2012 by 1 Comment

gas pump 1024x802 America’s Oil Melting Pot Could Shrink The Trade Deficit & Boost The Declining Dollar — Without New Taxes
With gas prices continuing to climb, there is an ever-increasing quest for ways to find a culprit that can carry the blame. More and more, the finger pointing is focused on the overseas sale of US petroleum product—with the belief being that selling American resources to the highest bidder increases the price of gasoline at the pump. This idea has made strange bedfellows of Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA).

Addressing gas prices, O’Reilly claims: “They are much higher because the oil companies are shipping their products overseas.” Representative Markey (of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade fame) has “introduced legislation that would end the exportation of oil extracted from taxpayer-owned lands, and the exportation of refined fuels like gasoline produced from America’s oil.” Markey’s bill is called the “Keep America’s Oil Here Act.”

The idea has gained traction. It sounds good. Letters to the editor have popped up echoing the sentiments—with one even proposing “a massive letter-writing campaign to Congress insisting it creates a law that prevents the export of our gasoline and fuel oil.”

I was alerted to the trend by “Chip” who wrote the following in response to one of my columns: “So why is no one suggesting a tax on domestically produced oil, natural gas, or coal being taxed if sold overseas. With all of our natural energy resources, why let it count for so little if global demand will dictate that we pay the same general rates for oil, coal, and gas as anywhere else…”

Whether we have a bill like Markey’s that mandates that resources extracted from federal lands be sold in the US or a tax as Chip suggested, the idea that selling domestically produced resources overseas is driving up prices is being propagated from someone, somewhere and is accepted as fact.

With the Obama re-election campaign being staked on raising taxes, it may well be coming straight from the White House. Markey’s “Keep America’s Oil Here Act” tells us that the Democrats have bought into the theme of discouraging exports of US product—whether through regulation or tariff.

Wherever this “protectionism” idea is coming from, it is wrong on many counts. While keeping American oil here sounds like it would lower prices, it will not impact the price and could hurt the overall economy.

In essence, we are keeping American product here as, at present, we use far more than comes out of the ground domestically. Yes, it is true that some of the barrels of oil that come from Texas or North Dakota or the Gulf of Mexico may be sold as gasoline to Argentina or Peru, but we use far more in the US than we extract. Once in the refinery, the barrels of oil may well be merged and the refined product that comes out may, in fact, be interracial—with the gallon of gas’ lineage being a combination of Africa, Brazil, the Middle East, Mexico, Canada, and the US. Since we need the crude oil from some of the very same countries to which we sell the refined product, such as gasoline, is it wise to start adding a tariff to what they buy from us and incite a possible trade war? Here in the US we get many, many products from other countries and adding barriers to trade is likely to hurt the bigger picture.

The misunderstanding of the “keep it ourselves” camp is that there is a difference between the crude oil—from which gasoline is made—and the gasoline and/or refined products such as jet fuel and industrial feed stocks such as ethylene, butane, and propylene. The vast majority of the refined products used in America are produced here. (Some may come from Canada due to the location of the refineries being closer to the American user.) US refineries export the excess finished product—we import about 9 million barrels of oil a day and export about 1 million barrels of fuel. In refining crude oil into gasoline, there are byproducts that other countries need more than we do. If those products, such as kerosene, cannot be sold overseas, we develop a storage problem. American gasoline usage is down while usage in countries with emerging economies is up. For example, in August 2011, US consumers used 8% less gasoline than they had four years earlier. In India, the usage in October 2011 was 5.4% higher than it was one year earlier.

America has the capacity to refine a more diverse mix of crude oil—including the cheaper, heavier crudes, such as those from Canada’s oil sands. Much of the increase in crude supplies is from the heavier oils, and this gives America a competitive advantage. While refiners in some countries are shutting down, the US refineries are positioned for growth, which results in increased jobs and tax revenue. It would be disadvantageous to tell the refiners that they cannot sell their product overseas. Americans are not consuming enough gasoline to fuel growth. Our refiners need the foreign markets.

America finally has something the rest of the world wants! For far too many years we have been importing nearly everything and sending our dollars to other countries. Now we are getting some of that money back, as fuel has become America’s number one export. This helps our trade balance and strengthens the US dollar. A stronger US dollar means lower gas prices as it takes fewer US dollars to buy a barrel of oil. The smaller trade deficit and the stronger dollar can lead to lower US interest rates and that is a boost to American growth.

Additionally there are free-market and moral issues with the “keep it ourselves” model.

If your daughter wanted to set up a lemonade stand and the local city officials told her she could sell lemonade, but she could only sell it to the locals, she might still agree to do it—thinking, “Who else will come down my street?” So she sets up her lemonade stand and sells lemonade to the passersby. One day a bus of athletes headed to the high school breaks down in front of your house and the thirsty athletes flow out of the bus and straight for your daughter’s lemonade stand. Waving dollars at her, they order her ice-cold lemonade. But the local government watchdogs come in and tell her she cannot sell to the thirsty athletes. This is both a violation of free market principles, and it is immoral.

By not being allowed to sell to all customers, she is missing out on a lot of potential sales. Leaving the athletes dehydrated, while she is standing right there with lemonade is immoral. Yet, this is exactly what the protectionism attitude does. It prevents US companies from selling the surplus to customers who want to pay for it and deprives emerging countries from the resources they need to grow. If we thumb our nose at them, they will have to buy from someone else. We lose.

It is better to keep friendly relationships with our customers and encourage growth in US companies that hire our citizens and contribute to our tax base. The more customers we have, from a broader base, the better it is for US businesses.

Instead of a “letter writing campaign to Congress insisting it creates a law that prevents the export of our gasoline and fuel oil,” we need to be grateful that America has something the rest of the world wants: refined fuels made from a truly American melting pot of sources and that “something” has the potential to shrink the trade deficit and boost the declining dollar.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

Filed Under: Commentary Tagged With: ,

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Arrogant, Abusive Authority

April 11, 2012 by 1 Comment
EPA logo SC The Environmental Protection Agency’s Arrogant, Abusive Authority

Did the Obama administration overstep its authority with its landmark healthcare legislation? During the three-day review, Justice Anthony Kennedy created news with his statement that the government has a “heavy burden of justification” to prove its case. All of America is watching and waiting for the expected June decision from the Supreme Court.

But, we do not have to wait to decide that the Obama administration has “overstepped its authority”—a federal judge has already handed down a decision. In this case, healthcare is not at the center of the debate; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is. The agency have been issuing regulations and finalizing rules with no “burden of justification.”

The EPA, “dominated by anticarbon true believers,” could be considered rogue—except that it has the blessing of the boss. The agency’s actions align with President Obama’s “campaign to raise the price and limit the production of fossil fuels” here in America. The  EPA’s freewheeling, however, may have been curbed as the agency is facing a headwind of opposition from the industries they are shutting down, state regulators, and even federal judges.

The wheels are coming off the wagon.

A couple of weeks ago, March 23, the EPA suffered a setback when US District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, DC, determined that the EPA did not have the power to revoke a legitimately approved mining permit once it had been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, as the EPA had done in January 2011 regarding Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 mine in WV. In ordering that the EPA’s “action be vacated in its entirety,” Judge Jackson said: “This is a stunning power for an agency to arrogate to itself when there is absolutely no mention of it in the statute.”

The EPA entered dangerous territory when it retroactively vetoed the permit, which had been approved after an exhaustive, approximately 10-year, regulatory process—which included time for an extensive review by the EPA. At the time, Senator Manchin (D-WV) said the “decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country’s history.” He continued: “it has negative ramifications for every state in our nation.” Manchin called the EPA’s decision “an irresponsible regulatory step” and said it was “a shocking display of overreach,” with “a chilling effect on investments and our economic recovery.”

The permit, issued in 2007, now “remains valid and in full force.”

The following week, April 1, the EPA itself took a step back in its arrogant power grab. Once again, in January 2011, the EPA positioned itself above the appropriate governing body. In this case, the EPA filed a lawsuit against an energy company it claimed had contaminated drinking water in Texas through a natural-gas drilling process known as hydrofracturing—which is currently regulated by states, and for which the EPA wants national standards.

In Texas, oil and gas activities are regulated by the Railroad Commission. The EPA said the Railroad Commission failed to address an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health. The EPA then, in January 2011, filed a lawsuit against Range Resources. The Railroad Commission accused the EPA of “fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling.” After an appeal from Range Resources argued that “the agency’s analysis was inconclusive,” and the company pointed to nearby wells known to contain gas long before Range began drilling in the area, the EPA dropped its suit.

Railroad Commission Chairman Barry Smitherman responded: “By dropping their court case and enforcement actions, EPA now acknowledges what we at the Railroad Commission have known for more than a year: Range Resources’ Parker County gas wells did not contaminate groundwater. This announcement is a vindication of the science-based processes at the Railroad Commission.”

The Texas case highlights other aggressive actions by the EPA. In agreeing to drop the case, the EPA has agreed to retest water in Wyoming and Pennsylvania where the agency has also engaged in the practice of sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt—about which the Wall Street Journal cautions that regulators may be “spreading needless fear so they can enhance their own power while pursuing an ideological agenda.” As far back as the early 1950s, natural gas, especially methane, has been found in water wells in areas where no drilling has taken place, but the gas is naturally seeping from “underlying gas-bearing shales.” The seepage can be accompanied by a “rotten egg” smell that tips off an investigation.

Addressing the Texas case, John Hayward, in a column in Human Events, explains the ideology that “is the core assumption of radical environmentalism: all industry is guilty until proven innocent, and the burden of proof rests heavily upon industry. Only the most aloof, unaccountable, heavily concentrated federal power is suited for conducting these prosecutions.”

By spreading fear, the EPA justifies its existence—after all, there is a problem that it needs to solve. It gains power without, as Justice Kennedy said, “a heavy burden of justification.” The crazy regulations the EPA has been issuing represent a breakdown in faith in the government. The EPA has been exposed as being abusive and arrogantly authoritative.

Just two days after the Texas reversal was released, the EPA announced a delay on finalizing its rules aimed at natural-gas wells drilled using hydraulic fracturing. Oil and gas companies pushed to weigh in on the new standards. Perhaps, the EPA is feeling like the rotten egg.

And, these recent “egg-on-its-face” events come after the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the Sacketts and against the EPA in a decision that allows Mike and Chantell Sackett to challenge the EPA. In a statement, the Sacketts praised the court for “affirming that we have rights, and that the EPA is not a law unto itself.”

With this change in climate, it is time to challenge the EPA’s recent regulations against the coal-fueled power industry and give the EPA the “heavy burden of justification.” Let the agency prove that it is not just regulating on fear, emotion, and ideology—but on sound science.

Read More and Comment: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Arrogant, Abusive Authority

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , ,

Life Under An Obama With “More Flexibility” — Use Less, Pay More

April 3, 2012 by 5 Comments
Barack Obama 11 SC Life Under An Obama With “More Flexibility” — Use Less, Pay More
President Obama made headlines during his visit to Seoul, South Korea—though not for his public policy statements, rather for his private comments, unintentionally broadcast, in conversation with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev. Believing he will be reelected, President Obama addressed dealing with “controversial issues”: “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”

The comment was made specifically about missile defense. But there are many other “controversial issues” plaguing his presidency about which he is likely to feel that he has “more flexibility” when he no longer has a pending campaign keeping the lid on his actions.

One controversial issue facing President Obama today is energy. Since gas prices have been climbing dramatically, his rhetoric has changed. He is now bragging about increased oil production—though fact-checking shows that his statements are about as valid as “a rooster taking credit for the sunrise.” This apparent “change” is really just electoral posturing, not a new energy policy.

With the election behind him, four more years in the White House would allow President Obama to finish off the American dream—making all of us subjects of the state.

Some might think my claim is too harsh. Yet, looking strictly at energy issues, a third world is where we are headed. It is widely accepted that energy use, wealth and health are connected. The countries with the highest energy consumption are also the countries with the longest life expectancy and wealth: human well-being and material well-being.

When we study the words and actions of both President Obama and his administration, we see that given “more flexibility” our available energy will be greatly curtailed and what we do have will be far more expensive during an Obama second term.

“Energy” refers to both liquid fuels for transportation and electricity for residential and industrial use. In both cases, the Administration’s policies favor reduced use and increased cost. Use less, pay more.

Because gasoline prices, transportation fuels, are the headline issues, we’ll start there.

During his 2008 campaign, gas prices spiked—similar to the current increase. At that time, candidate Obama was asked about high gas prices. His response: “I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing.”  And then, Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Under the pressure of a campaign, Secretary Chu has recanted, saying that he no longer “shares that view.” Yet, when asked about attempts to lower gas prices, he acknowledged that was not his goal.

President Obama continues his rant about penalizing the oil companies while promising to “double down on investment in clean energy technologies” such as “wind power, solar power and biofuels.” The biofuel he currently favors is algae: “Believe it or not, we could replace up to 17% of the oil we import for transportation with this fuel that we can grow right here in America.” The study his quote is based on also notes that it would “take acreage equivalent to the area of South Carolina to generate that much oil. It takes 350 gallons of water for every one gallon of oil you produce” and “meeting that water requirement would take 25% of our irrigation capacity.”

Due to the global nature of oil markets, President Obama doesn’t think that drilling for more oil will lower the price of gasoline. In his second term, we can expect to see higher prices for gasoline (perhaps, to European levels) and increased “investment” in biofuels. At the same time, he will continue to push for vehicles with higher MPG, despite the fact that Americans don’t want them. Oh, and don’t forget, we’ll have to keep our tires inflated.

Like President Obama believes investment in biofuels is important, he feels the same way about wind power and solar power—though they have virtually nothing to do with transportation unless we all drive a Volt. While he is pushing for electric cars, he is systematically raising the cost of electricity.

Despite his “all of the above” claim, he really only likes wind, solar, and biofuel.

During the 2008 campaign, candidate Obama stated that “it is wildly expensive to pursue nuclear energy” and that he planned to enact a cap and trade program through which electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket.” He claimed that if “somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can, but it is going to bankrupt them.”

Now, with the election looming, the Obama administration is already causing electricity prices to skyrocket by killing coal-fueled generation while pushing wind and solar that are intermittent and considerably more expensive.

Just this past week, in addition to the onslaught of new regulations on coal, the EPA rolled out new rules for coal-fueled power plants that will effectively “bankrupt” anyone who tries to build a new power plant. The greenhouse gas rules do not currently apply to existing plants, but EPA officials won’t rule out issuing climate rules for existing power plants—and environmental groups want them. Given the Administration’s propensity to give into environmental demands, we can be sure that a second term of the Obama Administration will shut down more coal-fueled power plants. Coal-fueled power plant closures are already hurting communities that are struggling with the lost tax revenue that funds schools and essential services. However, the EPA doesn’t take job loss into its decision making process. These closures not only increase the cost of electricity and cause the loss of jobs, they threaten the reliability of the grid.

Some might think, no problem, we will replace the coal-fueled plants with natural gas. This is a possibility. But, it will require new construction or expensive conversions—paid for by the ratepayers (you and me). The abundance of natural gas has resulted in record low prices. However the supply growth is a result of hydraulic fracturing—a practice currently regulated on a state-by-state basis, for which the EPA wants oversight. Given the EPA’s overzealous hand, it is easy to picture the Obama Administration banning fracking altogether—which would cut the supply of natural gas and consequently raise the cost and cause a price increase in electricity generated from natural gas. A ban on hydro-fracking, would kill the economic growth in blue states like Ohio and Pennsylvania—states Obama needs to win reelection—so such a ban is not likely in 2012, but would probably be part of the “flexibility” of a second term.

And, I haven’t even touched on the dearth of drilling or mining permits issued, the impact of high gas prices on everything else and the resulting inflation, the growing number of failed renewable companies, or the rolling blackouts you can expect. But you get the picture of life under a continued Obama administration—now with “more flexibility.”

So if you like high gas prices—albeit gradually increased, if you can afford the high price of a Volt and can tolerate the low range—while the rest of us subsidize it, if you don’t mind being hot in the summer and cold in the winter, you know how to vote. If you want the health and wealth energy provides, you’d better revolt this November.

Read More and Comment: Life Under An Obama With “More Flexibility” — Use Less, Pay More

Photo Credit: Geoff Livingston (Creative Commons)

Filed Under: Commentary, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,