Blog

[This is part 2 of a 3 part series on EPA’s announcement last week that it will propose a model federal implementation for the Clean Power Plan. For Part 1, “Context of EPA’s Bombshell Announcement That It Will propose a Model FIP for the Clean Power Plan,” click here. Part 3, on what a Clean Power Plan model FIP could look like, will be posted tomorrow]

In order to mitigate air pollution, the Clean Air Act establishes a State-Federal partnership known as “cooperative federalism.” Generally, under this regulatory arrangement, EPA sets nation-wide targets which States are then left to meet however they see fit (subject to EPA approval). Thus, States are primarily responsible for the actual implementation of the Clean Air Act.

So what happens when a State fails to heed the agency? As I explained in Part 1, the Clean Air Act gives EPA two tools to achieve its regulatory ends in the face of an uncooperative State:

1. direct federal implementation of the regulation, also known as a “federal implementation plan” (42 U.S.C. §7410(c)); and
2. conditioning state receipt of federal highway funds upon a state’s compliance with the regulation (42 U.S.C. §7410(m)).

These two options are very much germane to the Clean Power Plan—the Obama administration’s marquee climate change mitigation initiative—because a number of States have indicated that they won’t lift a finger to implement the rule.  [click to continue…]

Is the impact of global warming on hurricanes “worse than we thought”? Look at the data and judge for yourself.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) uses a metric called accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) to measure the strength of individual tropical cyclones and entire tropical cyclone seasons. As explained by NOAA:

The ACE index is a wind energy index, defined as the sum of the squares of the maximum sustained surface wind speed (knots) measured every six hours for all named storms while they are at least tropical storm strength.

Dr. Ryan Maue of WeatherBell Models reports that, “In the pentad since 2006, Northern Hemisphere and global tropical cyclone ACE has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the late 1970s.” He also reports that “the frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historical low.”

This chart shows global and northern hemisphere ACE during 1970-2014. What we see is “strikingly large” inter-annual and decadal variability but no long-term trend.

[click to continue…]

For the first time in recent memory, climate change was broached on one of the four network Sunday political talk shows. It happened on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, during a debate on the merits of the Keystone XL pipeline between Senator John Hoeven (R-ND) and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE).

In explaining the bipartisan appeal of a Senate bill that would approve the pipeline, Sen. Hoeven noted recent polling indicating that more than 70 percent of American voters support its approval. To which Sen. Coons gave an incredible response, claiming that what the American people REALLY want isn’t the Keystone Pipeline, but rather a carbon tax and/or EPA climate regulations. [click to continue…]

Formerly at NRDC

It is well established that the Clean Air Act doesn’t empower EPA to order States to comply with federal regulations. Congress can’t command States to legislate into existence regulatory regimes (New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)) and the President can’t commandeer state officials (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)).

Instead, the Clean Air Act gives EPA two options to achieve its regulatory ends when faced with an uncooperative State: (1) direct federal implementation; and (2) conditioning state receipt of federal highway funds upon regulatory compliance.

First, the agency may execute the regulation on its own. Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Association, 452 U.S. 264 (1981). There are almost 20,000 EPA employees scattered about 10 regional offices across the country. These bureaucrats can and do directly implement federal regulatory regimes. When they do so, it’s known as a “federal implementation plan.”

For example, a number of States balked at EPA’s 2010 rule imposing a Clean Air Act permitting regime for greenhouse gas emissions. Because they refused to play ball, federal bureaucrats implemented and operated the program, independent of the recalcitrant States. (75 FR 82246, 75 FR 82429)

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to implement a federal plan if a State refuses to comply with an agency rule. (42 U.S.C. §7410(c)). Nonetheless, the agency cannot always fulfil this responsibility due to EPA’s finite resources. That is, there are some regulatory tasks that would require too much effort for the federal government to perform; their implementation would monopolize the agency’s time.

[click to continue…]

Freezing Temperatures Once Again, But Thankfully No Video Sequel

A year ago this week, in the midst of another brutally cold winter, the White House graced us with an explanation of how man-made global warming might be causing freezing temperatures in a video about the polar vortex.

One bitterly cold winter does not, by itself, necessarily disprove global warming.  But the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) decided to try using the cold winter as evidence for man-made global warming.   It did so through  a short video titled The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes, in which its director, White House Science Advisor John Holdren, claimed that a “growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues.”

The video was widely covered in the press, but it was criticized by climate scientists on all sides of the global warming debate. Yes, there was a “growing body of evidence” on the topic, but it was growing in the other direction—that is, newer studies contradicted any connection between warming and winter cold waves.

CEI pointed this out in a petition to Holdren’s agency, the Office of Science and Technology Policy under the Federal Data Quality Act.  That petition formally requested that OSTP correct Holdren’s misstatement about the “growing” body of scientific evidence.  But OSTP turned us down, claiming that Holdren’s statement was his “personal opinion” and was therefore exempt from the act.  [click to continue…]

• House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi this week unveiled the Democratic Party’s priorities for the first session of the 114^th Congress. Notably absent from her to-do list was the mitigation of climate change, the awfulest, most dire, apocalyptic threat ever.

• Gasoline prices are below $2 at 40 percent of U.S. stations, reads a CNN headline. Which raises an important policy question: If greedy oil speculators control the oil market, as is maintained by many prominent progressives, then don’t we owe them our gratitude? I think so. [click to continue…]

It was inevitable. As soon as consumers and the economy start to enjoy significant relief from a decade of pain at the pump, the political class clamors for higher gas taxes and new carbon taxes.

The recent reduction in energy costs is remarkable. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports a 43% decline in the energy component of the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index during 2014. According to EIA, the drop in fuel prices was not due to “strong underlying trends in global economic growth” but rather to “supply-side factors unique” to energy-related commodities.

Fuel prices are down because the revolution in unconventional hydrocarbon production increased crude oil and natural gas supplies, and Saudi Arabia has failed to persuade other OPEC members and Russia to behave like a cartel and cut output. Crude oil spot prices recently dipped below $54 per barrel.

As a result, regular gasoline is now selling for about $2.20 a gallon — roughly one-third less than in Jan. 2014.

Credible estimates of the direct and indirect consumer benefits vary, but they’re all substantial.

 AAA: Americans saved $14 billion on gasoline in 2014 compared to 2013, with many drivers saving $15-$30 every time they fill up, compared to a year ago. As of Dec. 31, 2014 gas prices declined a record-breaking 97 days in a row, with further decreases predicted “as retail prices catch up with the steep declines in the cost of crude oil.”

Bloomberg: “Plunging fuel prices will free up as much as $60 billion over the next year that the consumer can spend on a fall jacket, a movie ticket or just more groceries.” That was in October, when gas prices were still north of $3.00/gal.

WSJ: Falling gas prices will give consumers the equivalent of a $75 billion tax cut. The tax cut is progressive because low-income households pay a larger share of earnings on energy. “Households earning less than $50,000 annually spent around 21% of their after-tax income on energy in 2012, up from 12% in 2001, according to analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch.”

NPR: If current gas prices continue, the typical household will have an extra $1,500 to save or spend in 2015. Already, “The average American is seeing a much bigger boost from falling gas prices than from pay raises. Cheap energy could finally put the U.S. economic recovery over the top.”

So naturally, ‘progressives’ now claim that, more than ever, a carbon tax is an idea whose time has come. Harvard economist Lawrence Summers, for example, argues in the Washington Post that “Oil’s swoon creates the opening for a carbon tax.” Does it? More importantly, should it?  [click to continue…]

Ladies and gentlemen, without further ado, the comedic stylings of Sen. Joe Manchin and American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard: