Blog

Post image for Another Black Mark against the DOE’s Green Bank

As I describe elsewhere (here, here, and here), the Department of Energy’s green bank is one of the worst government programs, ever.

For starters, financing is well outside of the DOE’s core competency, so there’s no reason to expect that it could start a successful banking operation from scratch. There’s also the fact that government has a horrid record picking energy ventures in which to invest taxpayer money. As such, the odds of the green bank failing were high when it was created by the 2005 Energy Policy Act.

During the whole of the program’s existence, evidence has mounted confirming that the green bank is a bad idea. The Government Accountability Office, the top federal watchdog, has issued three separate reports raising serious doubts about the DOE’s management of the program. These suspicions were validated when the DOE first loan guarantee, for $535 million, went to a California solar power company, Solyndra, that now teeters on the brink of insolvency.

Unfortunately for taxpayers, it gets worse, because the results of a recent investigation suggest that the green bank lacks transparency. Last week, the DOE’s Office of the Inspector General published a report finding that the green bank program “could not always readily demonstrate, through systematically organized records, including contemporaneous notes, how it resolved or mitigated relevant risks prior to initiating loan guarantees.” According to the report (available here), 15 loan guarantees (out of 18 total) lacked “pivotal” information regarding risk ratings.

[click to continue…]

Post image for On Energy and Environment, Center Moves Away from Waxman et al.

There wasn’t much to report from yesterday’s climate change science hearing before the Energy and Power Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Generally speaking, Republican lawmakers used the entirety of their allotted time to question the scientists they had invited, and Democratic lawmakers did likewise. Click here for opening statements, and also for an archived podcast of the hearing.

Truth be told, the hearing’s pedigree is more interesting than the hearing was. Last week, the same subcommittee held a hearing on pending EPA regulations for greenhouse gases, in order to inform the debate on H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, legislation that would check the EPA’s authority to enact climate policy under the Clean Air Act. During these hearings, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), who is a master parliamentarian, leveraged an obscure procedural rule to demand a hearing of the minority party’s choosing. Subcommittee Chair Rep. Ed Whitfield, in an act of Congressional comity, granted the request. Ergo, yesterday’s “dueling science” hearing.

There was one notable element to yesterday’s action: The extent to which the center is moving away from the Democratic leadership on energy and environment policy. Rather feebly, Rep. Waxman concluded by asking that the majority party agree to postpone tomorrow’s scheduled mark up of H.R. 910…until Tuesday. It was a weak negotiating tactic.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Waxman’s Latest Talking Point Is Wrong

Jean Chemnick at Energy & Environment News this morning reported on a Center for American Progress event yesterday, during which U.S. Representative Henry Waxman made an eye-catching claim about the politics of energy rationing. According to Waxman, the conventional wisdom that “energy and environmental issues are more regional than partisan” is wrong, because “there is now a starker divide between the parties on environmental issues than at any time during my career.”

The record suggests otherwise. Consider,

Post image for Primer: President Obama’s War on Domestic Energy Production

Coal

Clean Water Act: The EPA has invented a “pollutant”— salinity—in order to stop surface coal mining in Appalachia.  It claims that this “pollutant” harms an order of short-lived insect, the Mayfly, which has not been proposed for listing as an endangered species.  The EPA has set a numeric water quality standard for salinity which effectively bars new surface coal mining permits.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act: Despite the fact that the 1977 SMCRA explicitly authorizes “valley fills” (a necessary byproduct of surface coal mining in the steep terrain of Appalachia), the Department of the Interior is working on a re-interpretation of the so-called “100 feet buffer rule,” a regulation derivative of SMCRA, which would effectively outlaw valley fills, and, as a result, Appalachian surface coal mining.

Oil and gas

Red Tape: The de jure moratorium on deepwater drilling permits in the Western Gulf ended on 22 October 2011, but the de facto moratorium remains.  Two weeks ago, a federal judge in eastern Louisiana (the same one who overturned the first moratorium, and who then found the Department of the Interior in contempt for issuing an identical, second moratorium), ordered the Interior Department to act on 5 pending permits within 30 days.  Interior is also slow-walking shallow water permits.

[click to continue…]

Update on the States

by William Yeatman on March 7, 2011

in Blog

Post image for Update on the States

Maryland

Offshore wind energy is so expensive that even the Democratic-controlled State Legislature is balking at the price tag of Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley’s (D) proposed “Maryland Offshore Wind Energy Act.” The legislation would force the state’s investor owned utilities to minimum 20-year contracts for 400 megawatts to 600 megawatts of offshore wind power. Governor O’Malley’s office estimates that the legislation would cost ratepayers about $1.50 a month, but this projection is based on unrealistically optimistic assumptions. Independent analyses peg the costs at up to $9.00 a month. The disparity in estimates has elicited a negative response from O’Malley’s own party in the legislature: the Washington Post reported this week that two Democratic lawmakers key to the bill’s prospects have suggested they need more time to vet the legislation than is left in this year’s session.

Kentucky

By a bipartisan vote of 28 to 10, the Kentucky State Senate last week passed a resolution exempting the coal industry from EPA regulation, according to the AP. The non-binding resolution, which was introduced by Sen. Brandon Smith (R), is now before the House of Representatives.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Cooler Heads Digest 4 March 2011

In the News

The End of the Permitorium? Guess Again
Jazz Shaw, Pajamas Media, 4 March 2011

John Holdren: White House Malthusian
Robert Bradley, MasterResource.org, 3 March 2011

A James Inhofe Victory Lap
David Weigel, Slate, 3 February 2011

New Interpretation of Antarctic Ice Cores
Anthony Watts, WattUpWithThat, 3 February 2011

The Ignorance of Think Progress
John Hinderaker, Powerline, 3 March 2011

The Electric Car Pipe Dream
Mark Tapscott, Washington Examiner, 2 March 2011

Utilities Sell You out on Global Warming
Chris Horner, AmSpecBlog, 1 March 2011

The Failure of Green Energy
Larry Bell, Forbes, 1 March 2011

California’s High Speed Rail Boondoggle
Philip Klein, American Spectator, 1 March 2011

Can Tomatoes Take Any More Global Warming?
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 28 February 2011

News You Can Use

Climate Science: 10th Highest Paid Profession

In the Washington Examiner this week, CEI’s Iain Murray crunched the numbers, and found, “global warming professors are the tenth highest paid profession in the nation and the third highest paid profession in the public sector.  In terms of median earnings, they are paid as much as the average private sector CEO.”

Inside the Beltway

Myron Ebell

Inhofe-Upton Legislation Introduced

Senator James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, on Thursday introduced identical bills to pre-empt the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act until authorized by Congress.  The Energy Tax Prevention Act is H. R. 910 in the House and S. 482 in the Senate.

[click to continue…]

Post image for The “Fill Rule” Controversy Explained

Elsewhere, I’ve described two fronts the Obama administration is waging against coal production in Appalachia (see here and here).

Since the President took office, environmentalists have been urging the administration to open a third front against Appalachian coal. This one pertains to the so-called “fill rule.” Here’s how the Sierra Club describes it: “In 2002, the Bush administration changed a key Clean Water Act rule to allow mining companies to dump their waste into waterways. Known as the “Fill Rule,” it allows mountaintop removal coal mine operators to bury Appalachian streams with their waste.”

As I demonstrate below, virtually the whole of the Sierra Club’s characterization of the “fill rule” is incorrect, starting with the fact that the rule originated with the Clinton administration, not the Bush administration. In fact, the “fill rule” is a relatively innocuous regulation that acts primarily to allow the EPA’s long held definition of “fill material” to trump that of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The “Fill Rule”: A Tortuous History

The Clean Water Act prohibits all pollution discharges into navigable waters, unless the “polluter” obtains a permit. Generally speaking, there are two such variances: (1) Section 402 permits, for “point source” discharges (like a pipe), which are issued by the EPA or by a state agency whose guidelines are EPA-approved and (2) 404 permits, for “dredge and fill” projects (such as filling a swamp to create a new housing development), which are issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in accordance with guidelines set by the EPA.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Climate Science: 10th Highest Paid Profession

My colleague Iain Murray today has an interesting post at the Washington Examiner, about the surprisingly green salaries enjoyed by climate scientists. This excerpt aptly sums his point,

So global warming professors are the tenth highest paid profession in the nation and the third highest paid profession in the public sector.  In terms of median earnings, they are paid as much as the average private sector CEO.

Mothers, have your daughter marry a global warming professor!

Read the full post here.

Post image for Senator Dianne Feinstein Passionately Defends a Program She Voted Against

I’ve been a vehement critic of the Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee Program (see here and here). In a nutshell, I argue that the DOE has no business starting a bank from scratch. Even if it could cobble together the necessary expertise and infrastructure, the U.S. government has a long history of picking losers in the energy market (see: breeder reactors, synfuels).

My case against the DOE’s green bank has been made persuasively by the Government Accountability Office, the top federal watchdog. In 2007, 2008, and 2010, the GAO released reports concluding that the program is being not being run well.

My case was further made by the pending collapse of the first recipient of a loan guarantee. In September 2009, the DOE issued a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a company that you may recall from reports of it being a total financial disaster. It canceled an IPO after a PriceWaterhouse Cooper audit found that the company’s shaky finances “raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.” Evidently, Solyndra already has lost $557 million. In November, the company announced that it would shutter a plant and lay off 170 employees.

[click to continue…]

Post image for Can Tomatoes Take Any More Global Warming?

Today, my friendly neighborhood Potbelly Sandwich Shop posted small flyers along the ordering line, asking: “Where are the tomatoes?” The flyer explained:

The recent cold weather across North America has had a severe impact on the availability, quality and cost of tomatoes.

Due to these factors, we will temporarily cease to offer tomatoes on your sandwich. As soon as the tomato crop returns to normal we will add them back to your sandwiches.

We apologize for this inconvenience. We do not want to compromise on the quality or value of our sandwiches.

More evidence — if any were needed — that winter endangers public health and welfare. Tomatoes are a great source of anti-oxidents and other health-enhancing nutrients. And they are delish!

Besides ruining tomatoes, winter is strongly correlated with cold and flu. Winter can also cause or contribute to power outages, travel disruptions and delays, traffic accidents, and injuries from slipping on ice.

[click to continue…]