From Bloomberg
Key passages.
The Trump administration is considering taking steps to limit the ability of states to block interstate gas pipelines and other energy projects, according to three people familiar with the deliberations
The new initiative dovetails with expectations that President Donald Trump would use his State of the Union address to tout efforts to accelerate permitting and construction of oil and gas pipelines, though he’s postponed the speech and the exact timing of any announcement remains unclear.
The potential White House action was earlier reported by Politico.
Pipeline advocates who say states are abusing their authority under the Clean Water Act have advanced ideas for reining it in.
The issue, pipeline advocates say, is especially pronounced in the Northeast, where there isn’t enough capacity to send gas to New York City and other metropolitan areas in times of heavy demand. Energy Secretary Rick Perry has invoked the idea of using national security grounds to justify action on the issue.
“If a polar vortex comes into the Northeast part of the country, or a cyberattack, and people literally have to start making decisions on how to keep their family warm or keep the lights on, at that time, the leadership of that state will have a real reckoning. I wouldn’t want to be the governor of that state facing that situation,” Perry said last summer at the World Gas Conference in Washington. “We have to have a conversation as a country. Is that a national security issue that outweighs the political concerns in Albany, N.Y.?”
The evolution of energy as a state by state control rather than a federal matter is disastrous. In Australia the states are all run by totally fanatic leaders who compete with each other who can make their energy system the most expensive and unreliable. I think the global Warmists have so infiltrated our institutions that only a declaration of National emergency will stop them. The federal government which should be against the global warming scam has had to deal within its own party warmists ( the former Prime Minister being the worst) . But he looks sane compared to the lunatics running the states.
The states are insipid devotees to Gaia no matter which side of politics is in control. For an energy rich country it is a disgrace what is happening
Our biggest company, our educational institutions, our commercial associations , our national media, our religious institutions, our state politicians, are all controlled by warmists and when we have blackouts and soaring energy costs the reason is that we don’t have enough renewables, we have too much coal and we have too low emmission targets. The elimination of dissenting voices has gone from an underground movement of drowning them out by a compliant media to open warfare with academics like Peter Ridd, politicians like Stuart Roberts, Tony Abbott, Peter Dutton and Craig Kelly being ganged up on by warmists who are becoming more fanatical as our States run energy policy falls apart. Our current government should’ve declared a state of emergency, got out of Paris, overridden the States , stopped all renewable subsidies and built coal fired plants and then we would’ve had a chance but with an election in a few months and the Liberals ( our right of centre party) having been damaged by warmists suicide bombers Australia is doomed to a period of economic regression as the warmists take total control. Unfortunately only more frequent blackouts, higher energy bills and the inevitable human deaths that will follow will activate the democratic masses to do something about it. But that may not be till 2023 by which time Australia will have became a green basket case.
Sounds like California, seriously flawed and costly. You have it exactly right: “Our current government should’ve declared a state of emergency, got out of Paris, overridden the States , stopped all renewable subsidies and built coal fired plants”. Don’t get to excited about “the democratic masses to do something about it”. The politicians are just doing what the voters want. They’ll want the politicians to “soak the rich” and make them pay to “fix it”. The solution will be to throw good money after bad. California in 2000 was in a “deep power hole” but nothing compared to where we are now. Cheers.
I am conflicted as I am a states rights proponent.
sucks being me I guess.
Like highways and other transportation systems, there is an element of interstate commerce here to consider. In these cases, there is role for the federal government to play; otherwise one state could interfere in the commerce between two other states just because it happens to be in between them. I know that the interstate commerce clause in the US constitution has been historically abused, but this is, IMHO, is a proper use of it.
Explain to me why the feds have conceded pollution control to California?
I’m having trouble following your logic here. If you are saying that over-powerful agencies like the EPA and CARB are an example of abuses of the commerce clause, then I agree. Otherwise you will have to better describe your objection to what I said above.
Keep in mind that I’m not pro big-government; quite the opposite. I’m just pointing out that there are legitimate roles for the federal government and regulating things (commerce) that naturally must cross state lines is one of them.
Prevent coastal libbies from banning coal export facilities.
Natural Gas Pipelines constructed interstate have federal eminent domain authority that becomes available to the builder upon FERC approval. This authority is helpful in containing costs. Without the ability to condemn, a single landowner can ransom a $billion project. Procedures are well established to set the fair market price for an easement. Pipeline company selects an appraiser, the landowner as well, and a “neutral” 3rd party is appointed and a price is determined. The pipeline company will understandably pay a little more than the amount to avoid bad PR, court costs and delays. However, it is easy to delay this process for about a year and environmental groups currently always do so to show their sponsors they are “fighting” for their cause. All it does is add a few $million to the cost that is passed on to the consumer. Oil pipelines do not have federal eminent domain authority and like intrastate natural gas pipelines must have eminent domain authority from a cooperating state or the project is easily stopped by “environmentalists”…and greedy landowners.
GeoNC, simple isn’t it. But that’s what NY voters want. States don’t have an electoral college system so rural votes don’t count. Liberal NY City voters have all the power, and liberals are wrong about everything, everytime everywhere.
Part of the problem here in Australia, and possibly also in the USA, is that one business such as Gas, via fracking does not want coal as a business alternative, so may end up supporting the Greens.
Its time businesses got their act together and they realised that in the Greens they are facing a determined enemy , and combined to try and defeat it.
Perhaps they, bug business should stop thinking that the Polititions will fix the problem, and instead took a more active part in the running of the country . For example they should, by the use of money, force the Universities to have courses which would turn out persons who can be of use to the economy. Same goes for the State run schools, they need reforming, but politicians listen to fosus groups and do nothing to stop the Green influence.
The politicians tend to favour big business, because that is where the big donations come from, instead of realising that small business not only employ the bulk of the work force, but actually run the countries economy
MJE i
About damned time! Democrats HATE states rights, after states rights failed to keep their negroes in slavery, so Nannee and Chuckle and Aunt Esther and Callmama Harris and Accusatory Ocaisional-Cortex and Headcase Coumo all ought to be f*cking ecstatic over this.