
Accumulation of fraudulent EPA regulations impacts energy, economy, jobs, families and health
Guest essay by Paul Driessen
Call it the Gruberization of America’s energy and environmental policies.
Former White House medical consultant Jonathan Gruber pocketed millions of taxpayer dollars before infamously explaining how ObamaCare was enacted. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” he said. “It was really, really critical to getting the bill passed.” At least one key provision was a “very clever basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter.”
The Barack Obama/Gina McCarthy Environmental Protection Agency is likewise exploiting its lack of transparency and most Americans’ lack of scientific understanding. EPA bureaucrats and their hired scientists, pressure groups and PR flacks are getting rich and powerful by implementing costly, punitive, dictatorial regulations “for our own good,” and pretending to be honest and publicly spirited.
EPA’s latest regulatory onslaught is its “Clean Power Plan.” The agency claims the CPP will control or prevent “dangerous manmade climate change,” by reducing carbon dioxide and “encouraging” greater use of renewable energy. In reality, as even EPA acknowledges, no commercial-scale technology exists that can remove CO2 from power plant emission streams. The real goal is forcing coal-fired power plants to reduce their operations significantly or (better still) shut down entirely.
The agency justifies this by deceitfully claiming major health benefits will result from eliminating coal in electricity generation – and deceptively ignoring the harmful effects that its regulations are having on people’s livelihoods, living standards, health and well-being. Its assertion that reducing the USA’s coal-related carbon dioxide emissions will make an iota of difference is just as disingenuous. China, India and other fast-developing nations must keep burning coal to generate electricity and lift people out of poverty, and CO2 plays only a tiny (if any) role in climate change and destructive weather events.
The new CPP amplifies Obama Administration diktats targeting coal use. Companion regulations cover mercury, particulates (soot), ozone, “cross-state” air pollution, sulfur and nitrogen oxides that contribute to haze in some areas, and water quality. Their real benefits are minimal to illusory … or fabricated.
American’s air is clean, thanks to scrubbers and other emission control systems that remove the vast majority of pollutants. Remaining pollutants pose few real health problems. To get the results it needs, EPA cherry picks often questionable research that supports its agenda and ignores all other studies. It low-balls costs, pays advisors and outside pressure groups millions of dollars to support its decisions, and ignores the cumulative effects of its regulations on energy costs and thus on businesses, jobs and families.
Now, for the first time, someone has tallied those costs. The results are sobering.
An exhaustive study by Energy Ventures Analysis, Inc. tallies the overall effects of EPA regulations on the electric power industry and provides state-by-state summaries of the rules’ impacts on residential, industrial and overall energy users. The study found that EPA rules and energy markets will inflict $284 billion per year in extra electricity and natural gas costs in 2020, compared to its 2012 baseline year.
The typical household’s annual electricity and natural gas bills will rise 35% or $680 by 2020, compared to 2012, and will climb every year after that, as EPA regulations get more and more stringent. Median family incomes are already $2,000 lower since President Obama took office, and electricity prices have soared 14-33% in states with the most wind power – so these extra costs will exact a heavy additional toll.
Manufacturing and other businesses will be hit even harder, the study concluded. Their electricity and natural gas costs will almost double between 2012 and 2020, increasing by nearly $200 billion annually over this short period. Energy-intensive industries like aluminum, steel and chemical manufacturing will find it increasingly hard to compete in global markets, but all businesses (and their employees) will suffer.
The EVA analysis calculates that industrial electricity rates will soar by 34% in West Virginia, 59% in Maryland and New York, and a whopping 74% in Ohio. Just imagine running a factory, school district or hospital – and having to factor skyrocketing costs like that into your budget. Where do you find that extra money? How many workers or teachers do you lay off, or patients do you turn away? Can you stay open?
The CPP will also force utility companies to spend billions building new generators (mostly gas-fired, plus wind turbines), and new transmission lines, gas lines and other infrastructure. But EPA does not factor those costs into its calculations; nor does it consider the many years it will take to design, permit, engineer, finance and build those systems – and battle Big Green lawsuits over them.
How “science-based” are EPA’s regulations, really? Its mercury rule is based on computer-generated risks to hypothetical American women who eat 296 pounds of fish a year that they catch themselves, a claim that its rule will prevent a theoretical reduction in IQ test scores by an undetectable “0.00209 points,” and similar absurdities. Its PM2.5 soot standard is equivalent to having one ounce of super-fine dust spread equally in a volume of air one-half mile long, one-half mile wide and one story tall.
No wonder EPA has paid its “independent” Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee $181 million and the American Lung Association $25 million since 2000 to rubberstamp its secretive, phony “science.”
Rural America will really be walloped by the total weight of EPA’s anti-coal regulations. Nonprofit electricity cooperatives serve 42 million people in 47 states, across three-fourths of the nation’s land area. They own and maintain 42% of America’s electric distribution lines and depend heavily on coal. They have already invested countless billions retrofitting coal-fired generators with state-of-the-art emission control systems, and thus emit very few actual pollutants. (CO2 fertilizes plants; it is not a pollutant.)
EPA’s air and water rules will force these coal units to slash their electricity generation or close down long before their productive lives are over – and before replacement units and transmission lines can be built. Electricity rates in these rural areas are already higher than in urban areas, but will go much higher. Experts warn that these premature shutdowns will slash electricity “reserve margins” to almost zero in some areas, make large sections of the power grid unstable, and create high risks of rolling blackouts and cascading power outages, especially in the Texas panhandle, western Kansas and northern Arkansas.
The rules will thus put the cooperatives in violation of the Rural Electrification Act and 16 other laws that require reliable, affordable electricity for these far-flung communities. EPA’s actions are also putting rural hospitals in greater jeopardy, as they try to cope with “Affordable Care Act” rules and other burdens that have already caused numerous closings. As USA Today reported, the shuttered hospitals mean some of the nation’s poorest and sickest patients will be denied accessible, affordable care – and people suffering strokes, heart attacks and accidents will not be able to reach emergency care during their “golden hour,” meaning many of them will die or be severely and permanently disabled.
EPA never bothered to consider any of these factors. Nor has it addressed the habitat, bird, bat and other environmental impacts that tens of thousands more wind turbines will have; the “human health hazards” that wind turbines have been shown to inflict on people living near them; or the high electricity costs, notorious unreliability, and increased power grid instability associated with the wind and solar installations that EPA seems to think can quickly and magically replace the coal-based electricity it is eliminating.
Congress, state legislators and attorneys general, governors and courts need to stop these secretive, duplicitous, dictatorial Executive Branch actions. Here’s one thought. Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr helped organize the panel that called for establishing the Environmental Protection Agency. In a persuasive analysis, he says it’s time now to systematically dismantle the federal EPA and replace it with a “committee of the whole” of the 50 state environmental protection agencies.
The new organization would do a far better job of protecting our air and water quality, livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare. It will listen better to We the People – and less to eco-pressure groups.
______________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: To save the world from the save-the-Earth money machine.
“Let no crisis go to waste” Rahm Emanuel- corollary to this theorem is; “if there is no crisis create one”. All of the shuttering of coal fired electrical power generation is purposely intended to create an “energy crisis”. Add the closure of Yucca Mountain-no new nuclear power and the only viable substitute for electrical generation will be natural gas, whose economic viability is a minimum of around $8/mmbtu. There has been no significant drilling in “shale gas” in several years and the deliverability of these wells declines dramatically, so the probability exists that the supply may not be available. This offers a photo-op of frozen grandmas to be paraded followed by senatorial show trials , whose pre-ordained solution will be more government to the repair failure of the free market to secure the “public good”.
The EPA’s ever stringent rules are affecting not just electricity generation capabilities but the things we use in our homes every day.
We recently purchased a new electric range and thought we could use it in much the same way as the old one. In order to comply with strict electrical consumption codes, codes that are compulsory and without exception, the modern range has some bizarre features. When you turn the oven on the temperature level you desire is automatically reduced by 25 degrees F.
I phoned the help desk of the manufacturer to ask if it was possible to override this feature.
After a pregnant pause the woman came back on the line and told me it was designed that way.
So if directions on a pizza box says 400 degrees for 20 minutes I will be required to set the oven at 425 in order to have 400?, I inquired.
Yes sir that is correct.
I told her that a 12 year old must have designed it that way and she agreed with me.
The oven no longer has an automatic pre-heat feature so when you are baking cookies an extra step is required to heat the oven.
It does have an energy saving feature where you can turn off the digital display. Imagine the power saved with that feature.
When directing companies on the way they can design their products, has Big Green become so powerful they think they can re-write the laws of heat transfer?
What other conclusion is possible?
Is there any info out there as to what date the last of the conscientiously credible scientists resigned from the EPA?
I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be impolite, but I can’t find anything about this on Google, although the URL below suggests that, in general, the temp control is just not that good on most stoves
Can you provide a ref for this ?
thanks
http://www.thermoworks.com/blog/2014/11/thermal-secrets-oven-calibration/
Reblogged this on SiriusCoffee and commented:
The title should be:”EPA Rolls Back Human Health, Safety, and Prosperity”.
A new but eternal verity:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/peter-gleick-confesses-to-obtaining-heartland-documents-under-false-pretenses/253395/
“After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”
Sadly but also eternally true: “You can fool all the people some of the time; and you can fool some of the people all of the time…” and the lag time before all of the people become fully aware, all of the time, that they have been so fooled is a critical factor in the civic equation.
Thanks, Paul Driessen. Well said.
slightly O/T but if anyone interested I have lot of the gruber videos self hosted here
http://www.theconservativevoices.com/media/cat/political/gruber/
are you ready to apologize for your EPA shark jump argon post back in october ?
I mean, really, the truth is out their
http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/270917/speedreads-no-the-epa-is-not-banning-argon
and it is totally not what you wrote
As a liberal, I have a question for you conservatives:
Is Gruber the only person in the last 50 years to be an arrogant, well paid jerk in DC ?
Is ACA the only law passed with some sort of sleaze to fool people ?
Havn’t any of you read Mencken ? Or G Myers History of Bigotry in the United States ? (in the late 1800s, the American Protective Association forged what was supposed to be a Papal encylical that urge American Catholics to murder the heretics; this elders of zionish forgery was widely published, and many people acted on it)
Do any of you recall how multiple GOP/bush tax cuts were passed as “temporary” cuts to avoid CBO scoring rules ?
Or we create our own reality/mission accomplished ?
I mean, I give you points for trying to fool the rubes, but surely anyone with an IQ in double digits knows that Gruber is pretty typical ??
CinamonColber asks “As a liberal, I have a question for you conservatives:
Is Gruber the only person in the last 50 years to be an arrogant, well paid jerk in DC ?”
Hi Cin,
As a conservative, I see the problem is only half the arrogant well-paid jerks in D.C. or other western capitols get timely scrutiny. One side takes a pass, the other side must scale the walls under heavy fire. Taking UK as an example somewhat neutral to both you and I and other US political animals, why was Tony Blair (of the Liberal Party there) so closely reviewed for his “sexed-up” intelligence reports? And so belatedly? Our representative and independently paid investigators in the press are failing report –not only the answers, which frankly might be wrong — but are failing to report the QUESTIONS on matters of significant importance to world events. But only if these investigators feel that the matter has been settled in a fashion that suits their biases, and that questions would aid and comfort the remaining and reactionary forces in opposition. Had the intelligence info on Iraq in the early 2000’s been “DE-sexed”, to indicate a lesser problem than the former consensus, the media would have not dug into the matter. Only because the data –as presented– surprised and confounded their presumptions did the media decide to aggressively and skeptically pursue the quants and grunts and wonks in the bureaucracy who had contributed to the reports.
This is true, in my conservative estimation, in every nation with a more or less free press. The press is aggressively skeptical of only one side of a matter. And THAT is problem whether it regards health care, gun control, environmental policy, tariffs, educational funding, voting rights, community policing priorities…
I would expect you, as a liberal, to champion an aggressive “watch dog” press. Am I wrong in that expectation?
you are correct that the press, with all its failings, should investigate all sides equally
There must be something wrong, cause I agree that only half the jerks take fire, but I bet dollars to donuts you and i disagree which half…
I start off with the assumption that the Sturgeon’s rule applys to the press; they aren’t as good as we think.
‘
You cite
“health care, gun control, environmental policy, tariffs, educational funding, voting rights, community policing priorities…”
I could say, well, I dunno, I could find a list of things…
The trouble is, I don’t think there is an objective way to ask, is the press favoring one side or another; certainly, all the historys suggest that the press loved JFK and hated Nixon, but that seems to have been a personality thing – afaik
I think if you look at recent history, starting with Clinton thru Bush II and Obama, both sides have gotten a lot of flak, but , again, I’m not sure how you rate this
For instance, for me, Bushs dragging us into the Iraq war on false pretenses (I don’t know if he lied or was mis informed) is bigger then ACA, by a lot – but, I know a lot of conservatives dis agree.
I don’t know how to settle this, if you have any ideas, I’m all ears.
PS: I’m sorry if my answer is a little incoherent; my apologies
I bet dollars to doughnuts that there are DNC elites that think the same thing about their base (they are stupid) regarding climate change as they do about their base on Obamacare.
@cinnamoncolbert 2:42.
Who are these conservatives you address?
And your point is?
Lying is OK cause thats how it works?
Or Gruber is Ok cause .. George Bush?
my point is, outrage about Gruber is hypocritical without noting that similar things occur on a regular basis; that is, outrage that implies that this is some highly unusual event is hypocritical; outrage tht this is another in a long series of similar events is fine
To put it another way, outrage about duping the public about ACA is fine, so long as there is outrage about WMDS/Iraq war, or selling tax cuts with sunset provisions to avoid cbo scoring (you can of course, have more or less outrage about these events; me presonally, I think WMDs/Iraq 4,000 dead kids, a trillion bucks down the drain is at least equal to gruber, but taste varies)
how many republicans in the US lost their jobs (primaried out) since 2008?
many.
many of us don’t give free passes to anyone.
People around the world are FINALLY starting to wake up to the reality that gigantic leftist government models of central command and control societies don’t work.
“Gruberization” used to be called government propaganda, but tyranny by any other name, still smells like….BS…
Gigantic government bureaucracies have managed to delay complete catastrophe by running up $100’s of trillions of national debt and unfunded liabilities for future generations to bear, but the numbers are no longer tenable.
CAGW is simply a manifestation of leftist ideology of global central command and control, but this too shall pass, as the numbers are no longer tenable for CAGW as well.
It’s no coincidence that CAGW models and Leftist government models are collapsing at the same time, as both constructs are built upon the same failed ideological principles of central command and control, and both have been perpetuated by: huge leftist government bureaucracies, leftist academia, leftist advocacy organizations and a leftist MSM.
Reality will eventually disconfirm both the CAGW hypothesis and Leftist government ideologies. The only question is whether the denouement will occur through catastrophic economic and societal collapse or through a less traumatic structured transition. Either way, people will eventually work to restore a system of very limited government with it’s sole purpose being the protection of an individual’s rights to life, liberty and property.
Where do you go when truth becomes the enemy? /
Cinnamoncolbert
This is what my manual says downloaded from Whirlpool Corp.
NOTE: The oven door must be closed for convection broiling.
TimeSavor™ Plus Convection
When convection baking, broiling or roasting enter your normal
baking temperature. The control will automatically reduce the set
oven temperature by 25°F (15°C).
So the EPA is not involved ?
this is a whirlpool thing having to do with the calibration of cooking times in this particular oven ?
That is, for some reason this oven is “better” so a temp of , say 300 in a normal oven is equal to 275 in this oven ?
I mean, I work industry, and i can easily see this scenario, boneheaded as it seems…
In any event, my thanks for the polite response
‘300 in a normal oven is equal to 275 in this oven’
No. Heat transfer calculations will show you that is not possible. The engineers at Whirlpool likely told the designers the truth but ‘green’ trumps math. That was my point.
Is to possible
many reasons
say, where do they measure the temp ? I guess oven hotter at top; if whirlpool moved the thermostat sensor down in the oven chamber, it would be colder then std, etc
Maybe it warms up faster, and in the real world people put cold stuff in a cold oven, so for a one hour use, that 10 or 15 minutes of warmup is actually significant
Maybe the peak to valley in the controller is lower
etc
Heat transfer is more efficient with moving than still air. Cooling or heating.