According to the Industrial Wind Action Group, wind farms degrade performance of 39 percent of radar stations operated by the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

EPA Pre-Emption Bill Heads to House Floor

The House Energy and Commerce Committee on Tuesday marked up and passed H. R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, by a 34 to 19 vote. All 31 Republicans on the committee supported Chairman Fred Upton’s (R-Mich.) bill. They were joined by three Democrats—Representatives John Barrow (D-Ga.), Jim Matheson (D-Utah), and Mike Ross (D-Ark.).

The mark-up started on Monday afternoon with opening statements from members of the committee and then lasted most of Tuesday. A number of amendments offered by Democrats were variations on the theme that the Congress accepts that global warming science is settled and that it’s a crisis. All these amendments were defeated easily, but, as my CEI colleague Marlo Lewis points out, Republican supporters of the bill for the most part didn’t defend the bill very well against the Democrats’ attacks.

What the proponents should argue, but did not in committee mark-up, is that H. R. 910 is not about the science or what we should do about potential global warming. The bill simply says that the EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until the Congress authorizes it to do so. Chairman Upton’s bill is designed to re-assert congressional authority to make laws (which the Constitution gives Congress the sole authority to do) and rein in an out-of-control executive branch.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that passing the Upton bill is a priority. It is now expected that the bill could be debated on the House floor as soon as the week of 27th March. On 26th June 2009, the House Democratic leadership railroaded the mammoth Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill through the House in a single day of debate with only one Republican amendment allowed to be offered. The Republican leadership under Boehner is doing things differently, so there will probably be several days of debate with numerous amendments considered. The bill should pass easily, with almost unanimous Republican and significant Democratic support.

Senator McConnell’s Surprise

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) surprised everyone on Tuesday by going to the Senate floor and offering the EPA pre-emption bill sponsored by Senator James M. Inhofe, S. 482, as an amendment to S. 493, the Small Business Innovation Research and Technology Transfer Programs Re-Authorization Act. Inhofe’s bill is identical to H. R. 910, which the House Energy and Commerce Committee marked up this week. The Energy Tax Prevention Act (S. 482/H. R. 910) would block EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions until authorized to do so by Congress.

House Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) initially indicated that there would be a vote on McConnell’s amendment later on Tuesday. And Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) initially indicated that he would not offer his bill to delay EPA regulations for two years as a counter-amendment. Rockefeller’s bill is intended to provide cover for Democrats, so is trotted out whenever it looks like the Senate might pass a permanent pre-emption.

[click to continue…]

Does Sen. Jay Rockefeller Serve West Virginians or Harry Reid?

by William Yeatman on March 17, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Does Sen. Jay Rockefeller Serve West Virginians or Harry Reid?

Late in the 111^th Congress, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) was building bipartisan support for a Resolution of Disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Due to a parliamentary quirk, the Resolution needed only a majority to pass (that is, it wouldn’t necessitate 60 votes to beat a filibuster) and it was entitled to a vote, so the Democratic leadership in the Senate could not sweep it under a rug. Moreover, there are 23 Senate Democrats up for re-election in 2012, and the political mood of the country in the summer of 2010 was shifting right. (This was evidenced by the GOP’s success in last November’s elections.) As such, an EPA reform bill was an attractive vote for many Senate Democrats from purple states, where the EPA is held is lower esteem than in, say, California or New York. As a result of these factors, Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution appeared to have good prospects.

Enter Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV). Just as Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution was gaining steam, Sen. Rockefeller introduced legislation that would delay the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases for two years, rather than repeal its authority outright (as Sen. Murkowski’s Resolution would have done).

[click to continue…]

News Roundup

by William Yeatman on March 17, 2011

in Blog

Advice for Mr. Obama on Energy
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, RealClearMarkets.com, 17 March 2011

Chevy Volt: the Car from Atlas Shrugged Motors
Patrick Michaels, Forbes.com, 17 March 2011

Putting Chernobyl in Perspective
Josh Gilder, RealClearScience.com, 17 March 2011

EPS’s Utility MACT Proposal: Negative Economics for What?
Scott Segal, MasterResource.org, 17 March 2011

Anti-Nuke Groups Work the Press
Lou Dolinar, National Review Online, 16 March 2011

Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire
James Taylor, Forbes.com, 16 March 2011

With Rising Gas Prices, is E85 a Better Deal?

by Brian McGraw on March 17, 2011

in Blog

Post image for With Rising Gas Prices, is E85 a Better Deal?

No. A few reports have surfaced across the country about motorists with flex fuel vehicles beginning to fuel up with E85 rather than regular unleaded gasoline (E10). From the perspective of an uninformed consumer, E85 costs less than unleaded gasoline. It also gets worse mileage. Look at this article from Minnesota:

“E85 is almost always priced less than gasoline, and many flex fuel vehicle owners in this region have been choosing the lower priced fuel for years,” said Kelly Marczak, Director of the clean fuel and vehicle technologies program for the American Lung Association in Minnesota. “Today, the price difference is so large, even people who had never used E85 before are giving it a try.”

Marczak said that while E85 delivers less miles per gallon than gasoline, the broad price spread between the two fuels makes E85 a bargain for many flex fuel vehicle owners.

This is untrue, and its almost certain that Marczak is aware that its not true. The most recent average price spread I could find for average fuel prices in Minnesota is here. It lists the average price of E85 at $2.87 and the average price of gasoline (presumably with 5-10% ethanol) at $3.45.

For consumers to be better off financially purchasing E85, the price of gasoline would have to be approximately $4.37 with the E85 price holding at $2.87. Pure ethanol gets roughly 66% of the mileage that pure gasoline is capable of reaching, as a result, you must buy a lot more gasoline to drive the same number of miles. This can be confirmed by checking the Department of Energy’s Flex Fuel Cost Calculator. They make it really easy to find out how much money you lose each year using E85.

As you can see here, E85 prices tend to track gasoline prices pretty closely, so without funneling taxpayer dollars into making E85 even cheaper, or a technological breakthrough, this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

by William Yeatman on March 17, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

My CEI colleague Sam Kazman has a great oped in today’s Wall Street Journal, on how federal regulators are making us dirtier…literally.

Here’s the gist:

In 1996, top-loaders were pretty much the only type of washer around, and they were uniformly high quality. When Consumer Reports tested 18 models, 13 were “excellent” and five were “very good.” By 2007, though, not one was excellent and seven out of 21 were “fair” or “poor.” This month came the death knell: Consumer Reports simply dismissed all conventional top-loaders as “often mediocre or worse.”

How’s that for progress?

The culprit is the federal government’s obsession with energy efficiency. Efficiency standards for washing machines aren’t as well-known as those for light bulbs, which will effectively prohibit 100-watt incandescent bulbs next year. Nor are they the butt of jokes as low-flow toilets are. But in their quiet destruction of a highly affordable, perfectly satisfactory appliance, washer standards demonstrate the harmfulness of the ever-growing body of efficiency mandates.

Read the whole thing here.

Primer: EPA’s Power Plant MACT for Hazardous Air Pollutants

by William Yeatman on March 16, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Primer: EPA’s Power Plant MACT for Hazardous Air Pollutants

Today, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed a major rule to regulate power plants under the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) Section 112 of the Clean Air Act.

This post is a primer on this consequential and controversial decision.

Section 112 of the Clean Air Act

In 1970, the Congress added Section 112 to the Clean Air Act, requiring that the EPA list and regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) that could “cause, or contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness.” The Congress ordered the EPA to establish standards for HAPs that provided “an ample margin of safety to protect public health.”
Due to difficulties interpreting what should constitute “an ample margin of safety,” the EPA largely ignored Section 112 for two decades.
In 1990, the Congress, frustrated with the slow pace of HAP regulation, amended the Clean Air Act to remove much of EPA’s discretion over the implementation of Section 112. Lawmakers listed 189 pollutants for regulation. They also legislated HAP pollution controls, known as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. The Clean Air Act amendments set a “MACT floor” (i.e., a minimum HAP pollution control) at “the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of the existing sources.”
Section 112 MACT standards apply to both new and existing stationary sources.
Notably, the Congress required the EPA to proceed with caution before it regulated Electricity Generating Units (“EGUs,” or power plants). The 1990 Clean Air Amendments mandated a study on the public health threats posed by EGU HAP emissions, and the EPA Administrator was authorized to proceed with the regulation of HAPs from EGUs only after evaluating the results of this study, and concluding that “such regulation is appropriate and necessary.”

[click to continue…]

H.R. 910: Seizing the Moral High Ground (How to Foil Opponents’ Rhetorical Tricks)

by Marlo Lewis on March 16, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for H.R. 910: Seizing the Moral High Ground (How to Foil Opponents’ Rhetorical Tricks)

Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee approved H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, as amended, by 34-19. The bill would stop EPA from ‘legislating’ climate policy through the Clean Air Act. All 31 Republicans and three Democrats (Mike Ross of Arkansas, Jim Matheson of Utah, and John Barrow of Georgia) voted for the bill.

Opponents introduced several amendments, all of which were defeated.

Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) offered an amendment stating that Congress accepts EPA’s finding that “climate change is unequivocal.” Rep. Diana DeGett (D-Colo.) offered an amendment stating that Congress accepts as “compelling” the scientific evidence that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the “root cause” of climate change. Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) offered an amendment stating that Congress accepts EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) offered an amendment limiting H.R. 910’s applicability until the Secretary of Defense certifies that climate change does not threaten U.S. national security interests. Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered an amendment allowing EPA to issue greenhouse gas regulations that reduce U.S. oil consumption. Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) offered an amendment limiting H.R. 910’s applicability until the Centers for Disease Control certify that climate change is not a public health threat. Rep. Inslee also offered an amendment limiting H.R. 910’s applicability until the National Academy of Sciences certifies the bill would not increase the incidence of asthma in children.

These amendments had no chance of passing, but that was not their purpose. The objective, rather, was to enable opponents to claim later, when the full House debates the bill, that a vote for H.R. 910 is a vote against science, public health, national security, energy security, and children with asthma. This is arrant nonsense, as I will explain below. [click to continue…]

Senate Update: McConnell Amendment Vote

by Myron Ebell on March 16, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for Senate Update: McConnell Amendment Vote

The Senate may vote today on the McConnell Amendment to S. 493. The amendment is identical to S. 482, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which was passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday evening, with bipartisan support. The legislation would revoke the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Although this looked like a long shot when Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) surprised everyone by offering it yesterday, the Democratic leadership realized late yesterday afternoon that they might lose. That’s when Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced his two-year delay bill as an amendment. That has fallen flat. The outcome appears to be in doubt this morning. There could be a vote and McConnell’s amendment could pass narrowly. There could be a vote and the amendment could fail narrowly. There could be a deal on all the amendments pending and the amendment could be withdrawn as part of the deal. McConnell could pull the amendment because it’s going to fail. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) could pull the bill from the floor because the amendment is going to pass.

[click to continue…]

News Roundup 15 March 2011

by William Yeatman on March 15, 2011

in Blog

Post image for News Roundup 15 March 2011

Japan Nuclear Update
Iain Murray, National Review Online, 15 March 2011

Nuclear Overreactors
William Saletan, Slate, 15 March 2011

New Light on Hide the Decline
Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit, 15 March 2011

Two States Bail out of Global Warming Lawsuit
Russell Cook, American Thinker, 15 March 2011

Pawlenty’s Flip-Flop on Energy & Environment
Don Shelby, Minnesota Post, 15 March 2011

Risk-Free Energy? Surely, You Must Be Joking
Alex B. Berezow, RealClearScience.com, 15 March 2011

Engines Beware! Gas with 15% Ethanol Is Coming
Shane McGlaun, Daily Tech, 14 March 2011

Green Injustice
Niger Innis, Washington Examiner, 14 March 2011

President Obama’s War on Western Coal Demand

by William Yeatman on March 15, 2011

in Blog, Features

Post image for President Obama’s War on Western Coal Demand

The Environmental Protection Agency is using an obscure aesthetic regulation in the Clean Air Act to run roughshod over western states.

East of the Mississippi, President Barack Obama’s regulatory crackdown on coal threatens to shutter up to 40 gigawatts of electricity generation. Yet due to a variety of factors (the low sulfur content of western coal, low population density, and newer plant stock), coal-fired plants west of the Mississippi are in a much better position to withstand the regulatory onslaught .

In order to target western coal, the Environmental Protection Agency is leveraging a long ignored provision of the Clean Air Act designed to improve visibility, known as the Regional Haze rule. Notably, this is an aesthetic regulation, not a health-based regulation. In practice, eastern states are exempt from Regional Haze requirements, because the EPA allows states to meet this aesthetic regulation in the course of complying with health-based regulations.

[click to continue…]

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →

March 2011

Cooler Heads Digest 18 March 2011

In the News

News You Can Use

Inside the Beltway

Does Sen. Jay Rockefeller Serve West Virginians or Harry Reid?

News Roundup

With Rising Gas Prices, is E85 a Better Deal?

How Washington Ruined Your Washing Machine

Primer: EPA’s Power Plant MACT for Hazardous Air Pollutants

H.R. 910: Seizing the Moral High Ground (How to Foil Opponents’ Rhetorical Tricks)

Senate Update: McConnell Amendment Vote

News Roundup 15 March 2011

President Obama’s War on Western Coal Demand

Cooler Heads Digest

Subscribe for Updates

CEI on the Web

Contributors