Post image for Energy & Commerce Hearing: Rep. Markey Waves the Flag

Rather than address the real issue of the hearing, namely, whether Congress or EPA should determine the content and direction of national policy, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) accuses supporters of the Energy Tax Prevention Act of working to “disarm” America in the war on terror.

He reasons as follows. EPA greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations would limit U.S. oil consumption, hence reduce imports of foreign oil. That in turn would reduce the quantity of petrodollars flowing to the Mideast, which in turn would reduce Mideast governments’ support for Al Qaeda. Therefore, any bill blocking EPA’s regulation of GHG emissions from, say, heavy trucks, is objectively pro-Al Qaeda and can only be explained by the greediness of Oklahoma oilmen.

This is horsefeathers on many levels.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Energy & Commerce Hearing: Questions Energy Tax Prevention Act Supporters Should Be Asking

Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) clarified that today’s hearing is not on climate science but on whether Congress or EPA makes climate policy and the cost of EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations. Right!

Somebody though needs to ask Administrator Jackson questions that flesh out Sullivan’s point:

  1. When will EPA respond to the environmental groups’ December 2009 petition to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for CO2 set at 350 parts per million (ppm)?
  2. The Waxman-Markey “stabilization target” was 450 ppm by 2050. Yet the Clean Air Act requires states to attain NAAQS within 5-10 years. Wouldn’t a CO2 NAAQS thus require far more draconian cuts in fossil energy use than would Waxman-Markey, a bill Congress considered too costly to pass?
  3. Would EPA then have to issue a new “Tailoring Rule” re-imagining the Act’s 5-10 NAAQS timeline to mean, say, 50-100 years?
  4. What does it tell us about EPA and the Court’s reading of the Clean Air Act that EPA has to amend – or in bureaucrat-speak, “tailor” – the law in order to avoid “absurd results,” notably, an administrative quagmire that would both paralyze environmental enforcement and freeze economic development?
Post image for Energy & Commerce Hearing: Does the Clean Air Act Authorize EPA to Regulate Greenhouse Gases?

That’s the question Rep. Henry Waxman just asked EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. She replied: “The Supreme Court said greenhouse gases fit into the Clean Air Act’s broad definition of ‘air pollutants.'” Or words to that effect.

Civics 101:

  • Congress, not the Supreme Court, wrote the Clean Air Act (CAA).
  • The Supreme Court is not infallible. If it were, Supreme Court decisions would always be unanimous. Massachusetts v. EPA, the case to which Administrator Jackson alludes, was a 5-4 decision.
  • Congress and the Supreme Court are co-equal branches under the Constitution. Every Member of Congress takes an oath to “uphold the Constitution.” Therefore, every Member has a constitutional duty to exercise his own judgment as to what the Constitution means, what statutes mean, and whether agency actions under enacted statutes comport with or flout congressional intent.
  • If Members think the Court messed up, or if they merely think that the Court’s decision leads to bad public policy, they have a constitutional duty to rectify the Court’s error by passing laws like the Inhofe-Upton-Whitfield Energy Tax Prevention Act.

As it happens, a strong case can be made that the Court erred when it decided, in Massachusetts v. EPA, that greenhouse gases are “air pollutants” within the meaning of the statute.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Energy & Commerce Hearing: What the Energy Tax Prevention Act Is — and Is Not — about

I’m watching the House Energy and Commerce hearing on the Inhofe-Upton-Whitfield draft legislation, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, to stop EPA from ‘enacting’ climate policy through the regulatory backdoor.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is off to his usual demagoguery, claiming that Messrs. Inhofe, Upton, and Whitfield are trying to “re-write the laws of nature.” He accuses them of trying to overturn EPA’s endangerment finding (which he equates with SCIENCE) by legislative fiat. The premise of the bill, he says, is that climate change is a hoax.

Poppycock. Read the draft legislation. It says nothing about climate science. The bill’s real premises are:

[click to continue…]

Post image for Clean Energy Standard: Cap-and-Trade Only Less Efficient

As noted previously on GlobalWarming.Org, Obama’s “Clean Energy Standard” would effectively impose the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill’s emission reduction target on the electric power sector.

Under Obama’s proposal, “By 2035, 80% of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources” (i.e. from wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, “clean coal,” and natural gas). Similarly, an estimated 81% of U.S. electricity would come from such sources in 2030 in the Energy Information Administration’s “Basic Case” analysis of the Waxman-Markey bill.

There is one difference though. Emission reductions accomplished via Soviet-style production quota (mandates) such as a clean energy standard would likely be more costly than emission reductions accomplished via market-like mechanisms such as cap-and-trade. National Journal reporter Amy Harder spotted this issue last Friday:

“One of the things that happens implicitly when you set a standard is that you have in fact put a price on carbon, but it’s the clumsiest way to do it,” said Kevin Book, managing director at ClearView Energy Partners, an energy consulting company. “You’re not looking for an efficient, market-based solution. You’re looking for just enough to meet the standards solution.”

[click to continue…]

Post image for Cooler Heads Digest 4 February 2011

In the News

Congress Should Tell the EPA It’s Not Congress
National Review editorial, 3 February 2011

With Energy Czar Gone, Michigan Wins
Henry Payne, Detroit News, 3 February 2011

80% “Clean” Energy by 2035: What Does This Mean?
Ken Kok, MasterResource.org, 3 February 2011

T. Boone Pickens Unwittingly Exposes Absurdity of “Energy Independence”
John Tamny, RealClearMarkets.com, 3 February 2011

How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
Larry Bell, Forbes, 3 February 2011

[click to continue…]

Two Stop-EPA Bills Now in Play

by Marlo Lewis on February 3, 2011

in Blog

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the energy subcommittee, have released a discussion draft of the “Energy Tax Prevention Act,” a bill to block EPA regulation of greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act.  The full House Energy and Commerce Committee plans to hold a hearing next week.

Their draft bill is not as comprehensive as Sen. John Barrasso’s (R-Wy.) S. 228, the “Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act,” introduced last Monday. Barrasso’s bill would preempt greenhouse gas regulation under all existing federal statutes. It would also preempt litigation under federal common law to restrict or otherwise penalize greenhouse gas emissions. The Inhofe-Upton-Whitfield draft legislation focuses just on the Clean Air Act to “avoid jurisdictional problems at the committee level in the House,” explains my colleague Myron Ebell.

Sen. Inhofe certainly wants to prevent any agency from ‘legislating’ climate policy under all existing statutes, none of which Congress designed or intended to be used for that purpose. Indeed, Inhofe is a co-sponsor of Sen. Barrasso’s bill. If, as expected, the Inhofe-Upton draft bill clears the Energy and Commerce Committee, House Members can amend it on the floor to provide more complete protection from regulatory excess. Myron adds: “This is now a fast-moving train in the House and is apparently a priority of Speaker John Boehner.”

Here’s a quick summary of what’s in these kindred legislative initiatives.

Inhofe-Upton-Whitfield Draft Energy Tax Prevention Act:

  • Amends Title III of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to preclude regulation of greenhouse gases to address climate change.
  • Amends  CAA Sec. 302(g) so that the term “air pollutant” does not include greenhouse gases based on their potential climate change effects.
  • Allows EPA to implement its “tailpipe rule” establishing greenhouse gas emission standards for new motor vehicles covering model years 2011 to 2016.
  • Stops the tailpipe rule from triggering greenhouse gas permitting requirements for stationary sources.
  • Prohibits EPA from establishing motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2017 and later, and prohibits EPA from granting California a waiver to do so.
  • Overturns the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment rule, the tailoring rule, and other rules establishing greenhouse gas permitting requirements for stationary sources and/or State permitting agencies.
  • Allows States to regulate greenhouse gas emissions within their borders but deems such policies not to be part of federal law and prohibits EPA from enforcing them.

Barrasso’s Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act:

  • Finds that regulation of greenhouse gases under current law “is divorced from any intent expressed by Congress during the enactment of the authorizing statutes governing those mechanisms.”
  • Prohibits the President or any agency from regulating greenhouse gases under any statute unless necessary to protect the public from imminent harm via direct exposure at levels substantially greater than atmospheric concentrations.
  • Allows the tailpipe rule to run its course.
  • Overturns the force and effect of EPA’s endangerment rule, tailoring rule, and other rules establishing greenhouse gas permitting requirements for stationary sources and/or State permitting agencies.
  • Prohibits EPA from establishing motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards for model year 2017 and later, and prohibits EPA from granting California a waiver to do so.
  • Prohibits Federal Common Law or civil tort litigation to limit or penalize greenhouse gas emissions.
  • Prohibits States from regulating emitters of greenhouse gases outside their borders.

The bills are quite similar. The main differences are that the Barrasso bill: (1) preempts greenhouse gas regulation under the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and all other federal statutes, as well as the Clean Air Act; (2) prohibits Federal Common Law and civil tort litigation to limit or penalize greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) more pointedly prohibits States from regulating greenhouse gas emitters outside their borders.

Have you seen Spike TV’s new show on coal mining in West Virginia? I haven’t, but I’ve read the Washington Post’s review, and while it didn’t tell me anything about the show, it did provide an interesting insight into jaded lens through which the mainstream media views the coal industry.

January 28’s “TV Column” starts

“You know that West Virginia coal mine that’s the star of Spike TV’s new reality series “Coal,” from the same guy who brings you Discovery’s “Deadliest Catch””

O.K….so far so good. But in the second paragraph, the post television critic takes an unexpected turn:

“Federal inspectors have cited the Canadian coal company that they say owns the mine for 19 health and safety violations during the nearly three months the TV crew was filming there.”

The remainder of the article is given to the hazardous nature of coal mining. In fact, the regulation of underground mines is an extremely technical and controversial subject. If the Washington Post wants to run stories about this issue, they should be in Section A, written by someone with expertise on the matter. Section C should keep to entertainment.

Post image for Warmer Summers May Actually Slow Down Greenland Glacier Flow

In his Academy Award-winning scare-u-mentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore warned that global warming could raise sea levels by 20 feet, and implied it could happen in our lifetimes or those of our children.

Gore explained that the Greenland Ice Sheet could break apart and slide into the sea as “moulins” (ice crevices and fissures) transfer surface melt water during warm summers down to the underlying bedrock, thereby lubricating glacial ice streams and accelerating their seaward flow.

In CEI’s July 2009 film Policy Peril, climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels handily debunked Gore’s 20-foot hobgobblin. A month later, I provided additional information and links to relevant studies here.

Gore’s thesis was always a bit goofy, because his main “evidence” was a 2002 study in Science magazine finding that summer ice melt enhanced the annual flow rate of certain Greenland glaciers by a few percentage points — in other words, by several meters. For perspective, the Greenland Ice Sheet is about 2,500 kilometers long and 1,000 kilometers wide.

Last week (Jan. 27), Science Daily profiled a study that pours more cold water on Gore’s doomsday scenario. The review article could not be more provocatively titled: “‘Hidden Plumbing’  Helps Slow Greenland Ice Flow: Hotter Summers May Actually Slow Down Glaciers.”

Science Daily explains the paradoxical finding as follows: “The authors suggest that in these years the abundance of melt-water triggers an early switch in the plumbing at the base of the ice, causing a pressure drop that leads to reduced ice speeds.” Implication? “If that’s the case, increases in surface melting expected over the 21st century may have no affect on the rate of ice loss through flow.”

Last week Tim Huber of the Associated Press broke news on yet another front being opened in Obama’s war on Appalachian surface coal mining (I blogged about the other front yesterday).

The AP story pertained to a controversial rule derivative of the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), known as the “100 feet buffer rule. As its name would suggest, it basically prohibits mining waste from being deposited within 100 feet of intermittent or perennial streams. According to the AP article, the Obama Administration’s preferred interpretation of this rule would cost 7,000 mining jobs, almost exclusively in Appalachia. And that’s the Department of the Interior’s own estimate, which is likely a lowball.

Background: The 100 feet buffer rule was largely ignored until the 1990s, when environmentalists initiated lawsuits alleging that valley fills constitute mine waste, and are therefore in violation of the buffer rule.

[Valley fills are a necessary byproduct of surface mining in the steep terrain of Appalachia. When you dig up coal, the loosened dirt and rock, known as overburden, have more volume than when they were compacted. Much of this overburden is used to reconstruct the approximate original contour of the mined terrain. However, there is almost always “extra” overburden, and this excess dirt and rock is placed in the valley at the base of the mine. This is known as a valley fill]

The problem with the environmentalists’ reasoning is that SMCRA clearly “contemplates that valley fills will be used in the disposal process,” to quote the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. So it doesn’t make sense that the law would both authorize and prohibit the same practice. President George W. Bush put the issue to rest in his second term. His Department of the Interior undertook a formal rule-making to exclude valley fills from the 100 feet buffer rule.

President Barack Obama, however, had campaigned on a promise to “bankrupt” the coal industry, and shortly after assuming office, he had the Department of the Interior try to reverse the Bush rule change, and thereby subject the Appalachian coal industry to an army of environmental lawyers. But a federal court slapped down this effort, because the Interior Department had tried to impose the rule change without a formal rulemaking. Thus rebuffed, the administration promised to revisit the issue within two years, and instead used a different tack to inhibit Appalachian coal production.

Which brings us to the AP story. Evidently, the Obama administration has been working on a new version of the 100 feet buffer rule, and their preferred choice is a doozy. According to the AP,

The office, a branch of the Interior Department, estimated that the protections would trim coal production to the point that an estimated 7,000 of the nation’s 80,600 coal mining jobs would be lost. Production would decrease or stay flat in 22 states, but climb 15 percent in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.

As Appalachia is the only region where valley fills are used frequently in coal mining, it stands to lose the most. Then again, that’s the point. This would be the second major business-crushing regulation tailor made for Appalachian coal country (to learn more about the first, click here and here).