Even Republicans favor the EPA rules Republicans are trying to block

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The debate over upcoming EPA regulations is a perfect microcosm of contemporary U.S. politics, in all its unreality and venality. Two rules in particular are in the hot seat at the moment, both of which would crack down on pollution from power plants (yes, I'm about to serve up some alphabet soup, but it'll be delicious): the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which would address smog and particulate pollution across state lines (also known as the Clean Air Transport Rule, or CATR), and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (also known as utility MACT, for maximum achievable control technology), which would address, as one might expect, mercury and toxic emissions.

Two things have been fairly well established about these rules: Their benefits far exceed their costs and they are enduringly popular with the American people. Yet inside the Beltway bubble, it's perfectly legitimate to argue that they would cripple the $14 trillion U.S. economy or, incredibly, that preventing them amounts to a jobs bill.

Nonetheless, the public gets it. The latest evidence comes from a nationwide poll conducted by Hart Research and GS Strategy Group, sponsored by Ceres. It found -- like so many polls before it -- that the public overwhelmingly supports clean air protections across demographic and party lines.

Some of the more striking results:

• Overall, voters favor air pollution protections by 60 percent to 22 percent (with 18 percent neutral). Specifically, they favor CSAPR by 67 to 16 and utility MACT 77 to 9.
• Here's one that isn't a surprise given Congress' approval rating: Fully 75 percent of voters (even 62 percent of Republicans) think EPA, not Congress, should decide on air pollution rules.
• Fifty-four percent believe that public health should be the primary consideration in supporting new rules (just 13 percent think cost should matter most), and 82 percent believe that EPA rules will improve public health.
• Majorities are against delaying (67) or blocking (76) the rules.
• Republicans favor both rules too: CSAPR by 48 to 30 and utility MACT 63 to 20.
• Young voters (18-34, which I guess means I'm officially old) favor air protections by a whopping 77 percent.
• After being presented arguments from both sides, majority support for the rules remains robust -- by 67 to 33 percent, voters think the rules' supporters have better arguments.

Perhaps most interesting to me personally is the issue of how the public views the impact of these regulations on the cost of electricity. It is the one area where they believe EPA regs will have a negative impact:

See charts here

The pollsters compared the impact of two common counter-arguments to price concerns. One focused on the public health benefits. The other addressed the concerns more directly by arguing that electricity prices in fact wouldn't go up -- they'd be held down by cheap natural gas, more than compensating for the cost of the rules. The latter argument was more compelling, particularly to Independents, who favored it by 20 percentage points. So maybe the conventional wisdom among the rules' supporters that they should focus on public health is wrong, or at least incomplete. Perhaps it's also wise to deal openly with the public's main reservation: electricity prices.

Anyway, the fact that there's a winnable political case to be made for EPA regulations won't change the behavior of those in Congress who don't want to make it. They tend to the interests of utilities and industries in their states. But EPA's congressional defenders should take heart and so should the president. On a national level, this as popular as public policy gets.

http://www.grist.org...favor-epa-rules

[Danno 1,228]

The EPA has become a -Make work program.

When your handyman must pay the EPA $300 and take a lead-paint course to be certified to even paint your back door, you know they are out of control.

This is the new reality of their recent rules, they are out of control.

6 square feet is all it takes and you must be certified.

Hire an uncertified worker to paint your windows on rental property and you are open to huge fines.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Danno

[lostinblue 1,989]

Battle Over EPA’s MACT Rule Rages Within the Obama Administration

On Monday, Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette announced that he is leading a broad coalition of 25 states plus the US Territory of Guam in a court challenge to the EPA’s MACT rule. That’s the rule that has already shut down two power plants in Texas and threatens the broad reliability of electricity across the United States. The coalition, which includes states as diverse as Texas, Florida, Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia, and Utah, filed a 30-page amicus brief against EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, sharply criticizing her agency for rushing to regulate, using shoddy methods and failing to consider the substantial harm that the MACT rule may do to the economy and to electric reliability. A coalition of governors, led by Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, has also fired off a letter to President Obama asking him to rein in the EPA. They issued that letter on Oct. 7; the president has yet to respond.

And now the battle has spread to within the Obama administration. The Federal Electric Reliability Commission is also questioning the EPA’s MACT rule, according to a Wall Street Journal article out today:

At issue is the so-called utility rule that would impose new limits on mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The regulation is the most costly in the EPA’s history in return for marginal benefits. It was rushed out to force a large portion of the country’s coal-fired power plants to shut down. On top of other such de facto anticarbon rules, this could compromise the reliability of the electric system if as much as 8% of generating capacity is subtracted from the grid.

The state of Texas suffered a heatwave this summer, and power usage nudged hard up against total capacity. The state’s electric reliability commission estimated that had the MACT rule been in effect, Texans would have experienced blackouts that would have left them without the electricity necessary to power their homes and businesses.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission—which is charged with protecting reliability—admitted as much last year in a preliminary analysis, only to withdraw the document and refuse to update it. But now one of FERC’s five commissioners is calling out his own boss for this abdication.

In a recent letter to Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, who has been probing FERC, Commissioner Phillip Moeller admits, “I can’t affirm that EPA actions will not materially degrade reliability, nor can I speak for the entire Commission and how it will carry out its statutory obligations.” He added that FERC “should be involved in the rulemaking process of a federal agency if such involvement helps reduce threats to reliability.”

That’s precisely what FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff is refusing to do, perhaps as a favor to his political patron Harry Reid. The Chairman has broad powers over FERC’s work, much like a CEO, even if other commissioners dissent. The technical experts in the reliability office itself are also worried, as internal documents show. Mr. Moeller has repeatedly said he is “fuel neutral” but that as a Commissioner, “I cannot be neutral on the subject of reliability,” as he put it at a September hearing.

Mr. Moeller also dismisses Mr. Wellinghoff’s endorsement of a “safety valve” that would give FERC the power to overrule the EPA if it thinks its rules might lead to blackouts—but only after the fact. “I do not know what exemption process would work best for administering what may become a complex task of determining which set of power plants will need to operate for reliability purposes,” Mr. Moeller writes. In other words, no regulator has the omniscience to decide which plants are “must run” and therefore deserving of a safety-valve exemption. The only way we’ll know is after there’s a disaster.

These two agencies, the EPA and FERC, may now be working at cross-purposes. One wants to push through a massive new set of regulations in haste, while the other has the job of protecting our power grid. It will take a leader to sort them out, but all we have is President Obama at the moment, and his silence bequeaths favor to the regulator. If he doesn’t stop the EPA, the regulation will take effect, and job losses and even power outages will follow. Energy prices will increase. The Texas hot summer is over, but winter is on the way. That’s among the reasons that Michigan is leading the fight to stop the MACT rule in its tracks.

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/12/battle-over-epas-mact-rule-rages-within-the-obama-administration/

[lostinblue 1,989]

The proposed Utility MACT is a complex set of emission limits and standards . EPA has estimated the Utility MACT will cost industry nearly $11 billion, making it one of the most expensive rules in the history of the agency. The extraordinary costs are likely to have profound impacts on electricity supply and price. Due to the far-reaching impacts of the rule, many are concerned over the compressed timeline that exists for rule development. EPA received many requests to extend the July 5 deadline for receiving comments on the proposed rule, including several from bipartisan congressional leaders. EPA responded by adding an extra 30 days to the existing comment period, now ending on August 4, 2011.

The extended deadline for submitting comments does not change the court-mandated deadline of November 16, 2011 for having a final rule in place. EPA can request an extension of the November 16 deadline, but the extension would not necessarily be granted. Just recently, EPA failed to obtain an extension of a similar deadline that applied to the Boiler MACT. If the Utility MACT follows a similar path, EPA may be forced to publish a rule without having adequate time to evaluate the numerous comments that have been or will be submitted. For the Boiler MACT, this led EPA to officially reconsider certain aspects of the final rule and to issue a stay on the effective date to fully address stakeholder input.

A final Utility MACT is imminent. Most companies with affected EGUs are in the process of evaluating how to respond. Critical decisions will have to be made for compliance with the Utility MACT, as well as the other new and impending rules that are impacting EGUs. To learn more, register for our upcoming webinar at trinityconsultants.com/webinars.

1 EPA is using “units designed for coal < 8,300 Btu/lb” to differentiate EGUs burning lignite. It is important to note that 8,300 Btu/lb is on a moist, mineral free basis, which means with water but without ash. As received, this equates to around 6,000 Btu/lb.

2 EPA is using “units designed to burn solid oil-derived fuel” to differentiate petroleum coke.

3 On May 16, 2011, EPA issued an administrative stay of the major source MACT until the proceedings for judicial review are completed or EPA completes its reconsideration of the rules, whichever is earlier. On June 24, 2011, EPA announced that it intends to sign a proposed reconsideration rule by October 31, 2001 and to sign a final rule by April 30, 2012.

4 Separate limits apply only to pollutants for which EPA determined emissions are tied to the type of combustor design, as opposed to being tied directly to the fuel type (coal, biomass, oil, etc).

http://trinityconsultants.com/Templates/TrinityConsultants/News/Article.aspx?id=3494

[Karee 4,190]

Pretty interesting Texas is the only state with it's own independent power grid.

http://www.brighterenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/FINALInterconnectionsMap.jpg