October 2009

Yet another poll (Rasmussen) shows U.S. voters believe global warming is due more to planetary alignment than human causes, and they see President Obama out of sync with Americans on the issue.

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) published a curious op-ed in Sunday’s New York Times titled, “Yes We Can (Pass Climate Legislation).”  The bill that they claim to support and that can pass the Senate is not the 821-page draft bill that Senators Kerry and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) released two weeks ago.  It is a fantasy designed to get the support of Senator Graham and other fuzzy-minded Senators with visions of lots of new nuclear plants, billions for technology to capture and store carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, less dependence on imported oil, and tariffs to protect American manufacturing jobs in energy-intensive industries.  We can have it all with a few waves of the federal government’s magic wand.

But even a glance at their article shows how little substance there is to any of these promises.   No new nuclear power plants will be built unless there is somewhere to store the waste.  Here’s what Kerry and Graham say about that: “We must also do more to encourage serious investment in research and development to find solutions to our nuclear waste problem.”  In other words, not finish the Yucca Mountain site in Nevada that the federal government has already spent billions on, but which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and President Obama oppose.  Carbon capture and storage technology is more than a decade away from being commercially available.  Even if it works and is affordable, environmental pressure groups will sue to block permits for the pipelines and underground storage sites necessary to transport and store the pressurized carbon dioxide.  Here’s what Kerry and Graham say: “…we need to provide new financial incentives for companies to develop carbon capture and sequestration technology. “  Not a word about limiting lawsuits that would block projects.

Kerry and Graham support a border tax to protect American jobs from products produced in countries that don’t commit to reducing their emissions.  That is an admission that energy prices are going to go up and so are the prices of goods and services that are produced with or use energy.  Consumers will be poorer as a result and hence will be able to afford fewer goods and services.  Bye-bye manufacturing jobs.  They also claim that their as-yet-to-be-written bill will reduce our imports of foreign oil.  That’s plausible, but not exactly correct.  As our economy declines, we will need less oil.  But it will reduce U. S. and Canadian production first because the production costs are much higher here than in Saudi Arabia.

In a New York Times opinion piece published last Sunday, Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and Lindsey Graham (?-South Carolina) seem to resort to blackmail as an argument for climate legislation.

Here’s what they wrote:

Failure to act comes with another cost. If Congress does not pass legislation dealing with climate change, the administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency to impose new regulations. Imposed regulations are likely to be tougher and they certainly will not include the job protections and investment incentives we are proposing.

The first half of this paragraph amounts to a threat: Act now on climate change, or the EPA will, and those guys are crazy. The last sentence includes a bribe: Kerry and Graham are proposing “job protections and investment incentives,” no doubt tailored to your constituents and financed by the general public. Of course, it’s the American taxpayer who is getting extorted. Threats, bribes, extortion…That’s a lot of racketeering, even for Senators.

P.S. My colleague Marlo Lewis amply explains (here, here, especially here, here, and this one‘s good, too) why the Senators’ threat is toothless.

Detractors of capitalism decry that it caters to special interests. The opposite is actually true. Just look at what’s happened in the last year.

Most of Wall Street came to government asking for a bailout when the government-created housing bubble popped.

The Big Three automakers also went to Washington for largesse when their customers came to prefer Toyotas and Hondas.

Health insurance companies stand to make a killing if Obamacare passes.

T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore would make millions from environmental legislation.

Ludwig von Mises explained the reason for all of this corrupt behavior with a single sentence back in 1949: “It is precisely the fact that the market does not respect vested interests that makes the people concerned ask for government interference.”
–Human Action, 4th Edition, p. 337.

“Clean Energy Splits France: It’s Carbon vs. Countryside in Environmental Battle Over Plan for Windmills Near Coastal Shrine.” So reads the Washington Post headline.

But is it?

The article concerns three windmills that some fear will obstruct the view of the awesome Mont St. Michelle Abby on the French coast, which becomes an island at high tides. Yet the article also points out that France is very accepting of nuclear power, which provides about 80% of the nation’s energy needs. Another 10% comes from hydro. And the number of windmills in question, three, provide less energy than the smallest nuclear plant made — which is to say those on naval warships.

No, this isn’t really about energy. It’s about politics. It’s making a statement. And quite

USA Today reports that at least nine states (and probably more) are not meeting their renewable portfolio standards. What coulda happened?

In their quest to draw more renewable power, states have come up against obstacles such as the recession, red tape and an outdated transmission system that makes it difficult to move solar or wind power from where it’s made to where it’s needed.

Some states, including Delaware and New Hampshire, require power companies that don’t buy enough renewable energy to make payments to a fund for renewable-energy projects. That allows companies to comply with the rules but doesn’t help move a state toward greater reliance on alternative energy.

You know how it goes: government imposes unattainable mandates on business, collects fines as a result, higher costs passed to customers.

Whatta bunch a dolts the utilities are to back this stuff! Good thing we can take our business elsewhere…wait a minute…

Last week I posted several excerpts from EPA’s “Tailoring Rule,” which confirm that the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA (April 2007), set the stage for an economically ruinous administrative quagmire.

To reiterate:

• EPA, in response to Mass v. EPA, proposes to establish greenhouse gas (GHG) emission standards for new motor vehicles.
• Once those standards are adopted, carbon dioxide (CO2) automatically becomes a “pollutant subject to regulation” under the Clean Air Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program and Title V operating permits program.
• A firm must obtain a PSD permit in order to build or modify a “major emitting facility” defined as a source with a potential to emit 100 tons per year (tpy) of a regulated pollutant (if the facility is in one of 28 listed industrial categories) or 250 tpy (if the facility is any other type of establishment).
• A firm must obtain a Title V permit in order to operate a “major emitting facility” defined as a source with the potential to emit 100 tpy of a regulated pollutant.
• An estimated 1.2 million buildings and facilities — big box stores, office buildings, enclosed malls, even commercial kitchens — actually emit 250 tpy of CO2. Millions more have a potential to emit 100 tpy of CO2.
• EPA and state environmental agencies currently process approximately 280 PSD permits and 14,700 Title V permits annually.
• EPA estimates that permitting agencies would have to process 41,000 PSD permits and 6.1 million Title V permits annually for CO2 sources meeting the statutory definitions of “major emitting facility.”
• The enormous volume of permit applications would “immediately and completely overwhelm” EPA and its state counterparts, bringing the permitting process — and much economic activity along with it — to a screeching halt. 

In the Tailoring Rule, EPA proposes to suspend, over a six-year period, the PSD and Title V requirements for GHG sources emitting less than 25,000 tpy, on a CO2-equivalent basis. During the next five-years EPA will develop “streamlining” options enabling smaller and smaller sources to comply without going broke (we hope — currently the average PSD permit costs $125,120 and 866 burden-hours for a source to obtain). Oh yes, let me guess, EPA will also lobby Congress for exponential increases in staff and other “administrative resources.”

Although EPA does not put it this way, the Agency is proposing to amend the Clean Air Act. EPA invokes the judicial doctrines of  ”absurd results” and “administrative necessity” to justify this assertion (usurpation?) of legislative power.

In a later post, I may analyze the cases EPA cites to defend its proposal to flout clear and unambiguous statutory language. In today’s post, I simply want to excerpt passages from the Tailoring Rule showing how regulation of CO2 under the Clean Air Act as written, rather than as re-imagined, leads to absurd results — that is, produces insoluble conflicts between provisions of the Clean Air Act and generates outcomes contrary to congressional intent.

The gist of these excerpts is as follows. When Congress enacted the PSD and Title V provisions, it did not intend to create a paralyzing administrative quagmire. That, however, is what we’ll get if permitting agencies apply the PSD and Title V provisions as written to CO2. Sources that Congress never wanted EPA to regulate would be regulated, while others that Congress did want EPA to regulate would not be, due to the immense backlogs. The administrative morass would also create an enormous roadblock to economic development. Yet Congress wanted the Clean Air Act to enhance the nation’s productivity.

PSD

• CAA section 165(c) is particularly important in this regard. It requires that the permitting authority grant or deny “[a]ny completed permit application for a major emitting facility . . . not later than one year after the date of filing of such application.” A literal interpretation of CAA sections 165(a)(1) and 169(1) to apply at the 100/250 tpy levels would render compliance with this provision impossible by requiring far more permit applications than permitting authorities could process under the 12-month deadline … [p. 88]
• A literal interpretation of CAA sections 165(a)(1) and 169(1) to apply at the 100/250 tpy level would also be directly inconsistent with the PSD-purpose in CAA section 160, in particular, section 160(3), which is “to insure that economic growth will occur in a manner consistent with the preservation of existing clean air resources” . . . Because PSD is a preconstruction requirement, increasing permitting authorities’ workload from 300 to 41,000 permits would severely undermine this purpose of facilitating economic growth . . . Each year, many thousands of sources would face multi-year delays in receiving their permits, and as a result, for all practical purposes, they would be forced to place on hold their plans to construct or modify. [p. 89]
• . . . a literal application of the applicability provisions would lead to results that are diametrically inconsistent with Congress’s expressed intent . . . Congress was focused on sources of criteria pollutants — primarily sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) — and not GHG emissions. This focus stems from the basic purpose of the PSD program, which is to safeguard maintenance of the NAAQS [national ambient air quality standards], combined with the limited awareness at the time of the problem of climate change. [p. 90]
• Congress designed the PSD provisions to impose significant regulatory requirements, on a source-by-source basis, to identify and implement BACT [best available control technologies] . . . Congress was well aware that because these requirements are individualized to the source, they are expensive. Accordingly, Congress designed the applicability provisions to apply these requirements to industrial sources of a certain type and size . . . Congress’s limitation of PSD to larger sources was quite deliberate, and was based on its determination to limit the costs that PSD permitting entails to larger sources in certain industries . . . ”facilities, which due to their size, are financially able to bear the substantial regulatory costs imposed by the PSD provisions and which, as a group, are primarily responsible for emissions of the deleterious pollutants that befoul the nation’s air” [quoting Alabama Power v. Costle; pp. 90-91]
• However, applying the 100/250 tpy threshold literally to CO2 emissions would frustrate congressional intent by subjecting to PSD sources that Congress specifically intended not to include. [p. 95]
• . . . the extraordinary number of sources subject to PSD would preclude the permitting authorities from processing permit applications for all sources, including those Congress intended to subject to PSD. Because PSD is a preconstruction program, those sources would face many years of delay before they could construct or modify, which would undermine congressional [intent] to allow economic growth in PSD areas. [p. 100]

Title V

• . . .a literal application of the 100 tpy threshold requirement in CAA sections 502(a), 501(2)(B), and 302(j) would be in tensions with a specific CAA requirement, that of CAA section 503(c), which imposes a time limit of 18 months from the date of receipt of the completed permit application for the permitting authority to issue or deny the permit. It would be flatly impossible for permitting authorities to meet this statutory requirement if their workload increases from 14,000 permits to 6.1 million. [p. 101]
• As noted elsewhere, Congress intended through Title V to facilitate compliance [with other Clean Air Act requirements] by establishing an operating permit program that requires the source to combine in a single permit all of its CAA requirements. [p. 101] [However] . . . the great majority of these [6.1 million] sources will not be subject to any CAA requirements, so that although they would need to apply for and receive a permit, there would be no applicable requirements to include in the permit and the exercise would not improve compliance. [p. 103]
• Thus, as with PSD, a literal interpretation of the Title V threshold provisions would apply Title V to millions of sources that Congress did not intend be covered, and the ensuing administrative burdens — at least initially — would impede the issuance of permits to the thousands of sources that Congress did intend be covered. [p. 104]

What would be funny about all of this, if the threat to our economic and constitutional system of separation of powers did not loom so large, is the spectacle of EPA carefully tip-toeing around the real source of the absurd results: Mass. v. EPA.

It’s not only the case that Congress did not intend to apply PSD and Title V to small entities. Congress never intended for EPA to control CO2 emissions under the Clean Air Act!

The one limited exception (which occurred after Mass v. EPA was decided) is the renewable fuel standard (RFS) established by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). The RFS mandates the sale of renewable fuels, which must achieve specified percentage reductions in GHG emissions, based on a life-cycle analysis, compared to petroleum-based fuels. However, section 210(b)(12) of EISA makes clear that the RFS does not establish precedent for any additional regulation of CO2 under any other provision of the Clean Air Act:

Nothing in this subsection, or regulations issued pursuant to this subsection, shall affect or be construed to affect the regulatory status of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas, for purposes of other provisions (including section 165 [i.e., the PSD program] of this Act [i.e., the Clean Air Act].  

Conclusion

EPA writes as if Congress, when it enacted or amended the Clean Air Act, somehow inserted malicious code — the regulatory equivalent of a computer virus — into the text of the statute. This self-destruct program, we are to suppose, was lurking in there all this time. Then all of a sudden, the dormant bug became active, and now the Clean Air Act is going haywire, working at cross purposes with itself, subverting congressional intent, and imperiling the nation’s economic future. Therefore, EPA must step in, play lawmaker, and amend the Act.

And if you believe any of that, dear reader, I’ve got a bridge to sell you!

As I said in my earlier post, when a court decision leads to absurd results, there are only two possibilities. Either (1) the absurdity was embedded in the statute from the beginning, and the court just brought it to light. Or (2) the court manufactured the absurdity by mis-reading of the statute.

The absurdities EPA’s Tailoring Rule describes exists only by virtue of the Massachusetts Court’s agenda-driven decision. The real issue in Mass. v. EPA, which the Court never addressed, was whether Congress, when it enacted and amended the provision in dispute — section 202 of the Clean Air Act — in 1970 and 1977, intended for EPA to apply the Act as a whole, including PSD and Title V and the NAAQS program, to carbon dioxide for global warming purposes. To ask this question is to answer it.

Moreover, as I explain in my comment (pp. 28-23) on EPA’s endangerment proposal, the Court’s entire argument rests on a tortured reading of the Clean Air Act definition of ”air pollutant,” in section 302(g).

Here’s the semantic game the Court majority employed to empower EPA to Kyotoize the U.S. economy: (i) The EPA has authority to regulate air pollutants; (ii) an “air pollutant” is anything “emitted” into or otherwise entering the air; (iii) carbon dioxide is emitted; ergo (iv), EPA has authority to implement regulatory climate policy.

The lynchpin of the argument is step (ii). Justice Scalia quipped that under the majority’s reading of 302(g), anything airborne, “from Frisbees to flatulence,” qualifies as an air pollutant. It’s actually worse than that. On the majority’s reading, even totally clean air, air that is 100% pollution-free, is an “air pollutant” if it is “emitted” into or otherwise enters the ambient air. That is absurd. From absurd premises come absurd results.