1 August 2014

In the News

Former Employees Allege Widespread Illegality at Taxpayer-Backed Solar Company

Lachlan Markay, Washington Free Beacon, 31 July 2014

Solar Power: Is There a Business Case?

Philip Dowd, WattsUpWithThat, 31 July 2014

Is EPA Really Interested in Your Criticism?

Nicolas Loris, The Daily Signal, 30 July 2014

In Search of Real Environmentalism

Ben Acheson, Master Resource, 30 July 2014

Senate Report Details “Billionaire’s Club” Behind Special Interests Holding Reins at EPA

Chris Prandoni, Forbes, 30 July 2014

EPA Regulations a Dark, Costly Chapter in Our History

Paul Driessen, Investor’s Business Daily, 30 July 2014

Heritage Foundation Panel Addresses EPA’s Unprecedented Climate Change Regulations

William Yeatman, GlobalWarming.org, 29 July 2014

College Professor Uses English Class To Push Global Warming

Samantha Reinis, Campus Reform, 29 July 2014

Average Price of Electricity Climbs to All-Time Record

Terence Jeffrey, CNSNews, 29 July 2014

News You Can Use

Study: Ozone Regulation Would Cost $2.2 Trillion

EPA’s impending ozone regulation could cost $2.2 trillion, reduce the gross domestic product by

$3.4 trillion, and eliminate 2.9 million jobs between 2017 and 2014, according to a study

published this week by the National Association of Manufacturers.

Inside the Beltway

William Yeatman

EPA’s Climate Regulations Take Center Stage in House of

Representatives

This was the Congress’s last week before the August recess, and there were two House

hearings given to EPA’s proposed Clean Air Act regulations for greenhouse gases from existing

power plants, known as the Clean Power Plan.

On Tuesday morning, House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy and Power held

a hearing to get input from all five members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on

how EPA’s rule would affect the nation’s electricity grid. My colleague Marlo Lewis reported on

the hearing at globalwarming.org; his take-away is the rule would fundamentally overhaul the

electric system. Regarding electric reliability in particular, it bears noting that EPA’s analysis—

which has proven to be unrealistically optimistic—concedes that the rule would threaten

reliability in New England, Florida, and Gulf States. The reality is likely much worse.

On Wednesday morning, I attended a House Science, Space, and Technology Committee held

a hearing on “EPA’s Carbon Plan: Failure by Design.” Panelists were Jeffrey Holmstead

(partner, Bracewell & Giuliani), Charles McConnell (executive director, Energy & Environment

Initiative), David Cash (Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality),

and Gregory Sopkin (partner, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer LLP).

McConnell delivered the best exchanges. During his opening statement, for example, he held

up a dime, and noted that EPA’s Clean Power Plan would limit sea level rise by an amount

commensurate with 1/3rd the thickness of the coin.

However, his most impactful testimony pertained to EPA’s inability to work with other agencies.

Before resigning in early 2013, McConnell was assistant secretary for fossil energy at the

Energy Department. This is the office responsible for facilitating federal assistance in the

development of carbon capture and sequester (CCS) technology. In fact, EPA required CCS

technology in its controversial carbon rule for new coal-fired power plants, so you’d think that

EPA would’ve welcomed collaboration with McConnell’s office. Alas, you’d be wrong. McConnell

told the committee that “a true collaborative effort would have been far different from what I

observed.” According to Mr. McConnell, EPA viewed the interagency process as a “box-

checking exercise” and he called the agency’s attitude “disingenuous.”

McConnell’s account raises troubling issues. For starters, EPA has no functional expertise in

CCS technology. It is, therefore, strange that the agency would spurn input from a federal office

that does possess such expertise. EPA’s failure to do so suggests incompetence, and it

perhaps explains why the regulation is rife with legal flaws.

Taking a step back, his testimony makes me wonder if there’s anyone with whom EPA works

well, other than environmental special interests (of course). After all, the Department of Energy

is a fellow federal agency. They’re peers, yet EPA refused to get along. Moreover, we know that

Obama’s EPA has had an unprecedentedly poor relationship with States, which are supposed

to be the agency’s partners under the cooperative federalism framework established by the

Clean Air Act. And it goes without saying that this EPA treats “dirty” industry with contempt.

Thus, EPA has rejected collaboration with the public and private sectors. Unfortunately, so long

as Congress refuses to protect its own power and the judiciary defers evermore to agency

action, EPA can go it alone.

Across the States

EPA Holds Public Hearings on Clean Power Plan

EPA this week held public hearings on its proposed Climate Action Plan in Washington, D.C.,

Denver, Atlanta, and Pittsburgh. The fact that EPA scheduled these hearings in metropolitan

areas, rather than the areas of the country that will be most affected by the rule, raised the ire of

prominent critics, including Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who called the hearings a

“sham.”

On a personal note, I signed up to speak at the one in Washington, but EPA denied me the

opportunity. The Daily Caller’s Michael Bastasch reported that my experience was not unique,

and that opponents of the rule seem to have been disproportionately shut out of the D.C.

hearing.

The hearings were bookended by ominous signs. At the last minute, the hearing in Atlanta was

moved to a new location, due to power outage. And on the final day of hearings, Alpha Natural

Resources announced it would eliminate 1,100 coal mining jobs in Appalachia; the company

attributed the decision in part to EPA regulations. These two phenomena—power scarcity and

job losses—are likely manifestations of EPA’s Clean Power Plan, if it is finalized in anything

resembling its proposed form.

Around the World

William Yeatman

International Monetary Fund Proposes $1.60 U.S. Gas Tax

National Journal’s Jason Plautz yesterday reported on a new book published by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF), whose thesis is that “energy prices in many countries are

wrong” because they don’t account for global warming. For the U.S., the IMF recommends a

$1.60 per gallon gas tax. Thankfully, IMF has no power over U.S. domestic policy. Nonetheless,

the Fund’s evident mission creep is eyebrow-raising. Why is the IMF, whose original purpose

was to ensure exchange-rate stability, writing white papers about implausible American

domestic policies?