Don’t Get Spun On EPA’s Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission Rule
So, just months after the President made climate change an alleged priority commitment in his Inaugural and State of the Union addresses, his first formal regulatory action was to weaken and delay EPA proposed rules – in order to promote coal.
[Updates below]
Just a quick note, because I don’t have time to write in detail about this today.
There is a lot of confusion (it’s not a “tight cap” and it’s not new) and pure political spin on the EPA’s proposed rule on power plant greenhouse gas emsisions announced yesterday.
So here is the cliff notes talking points critique to puncuture the spin.
Yesterday’s EPA proposed rule was a huge political and regulatory setback.
The defeat was signaled in Obama’s “President’s Climate Action Plan” June 2013 and Obama’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future.” March 30, 2011.
Those policy statements affirmatively promote the continued use and expansion of coal. Some refer to this as the “all of the above” energy strategy.
So, just months after the President made climate change an alleged priority commitment in his Inaugural and State of the Union addresses, his first formal regulatory action was to weaken and delay EPA proposed rules – in order to promote coal (and dampen false criticism of his so called “War On Coal”).
Echoes of the Nobel Peace Prize winner with a Kill List.
And the timing of the announcement is highly suspect – it was likely to divert attention and dampen criticims from today’s “drawing the line” protests on KXL pipeline. Here’s bullets why:
1. First of all, this rule applies to NEW coal plants, which are not being built for economic reasons. And the target date for a final rule is now 2017. There is no progress on a rule for EXISTING plants, which cause 40% of GHG emissions.
2. The EPA WITHDREW the April 2012 PROPOSED RULE. That means that 17 months were wasted. A large majority of 2.5 million public comments who opposed the rule were a wasted effort. The Coal Lobby killed it.
The reasons for rescinding the 2012 proposal were explained by EPA in the EPA withdrawal document. But I think there are other reasons EPA did not mention:
- EPA was politically cowed by the White House in response to the coal lobby, coal state Democrats, and Republican attacks on Obama’s “War on Coal” (I heard EPA Administrator on NPR state that they accommodated new coal.)
- EPA feared litigation risk – this is likely due to a major screw up under Lisa Jackson.
- These kind of political and regulatory concessions to the coal lobby further weaken the ability of EPA to issue a strong rule on existing plants (something I’ve said they would never do effectively).
3. Based on modeling, that 2012 proposed rule assumed NO NEW COAL plants would be built and therefore set a single 1,000 lb emission standard based on gas fired plants.
In a huge concession to the coal lobby, the proposal yesterday reversed that assumption about new coal plants, and set a weaker 1,100 lb standard explicitly to accomodate NEW coal plants, and stated:
“there could well be limited new coal-fired generating capacity being constructed” http://bit.do/bHAM (@ p. 10)
4. The rule EPA proposed yesterday WEAKENS the 2012 proposal and injects at least 2 more years of delay. Read the EPA withdrawal notice in the Fed. Register.
5. On top of that, EPA’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis said the proposed rule would have “negligible CO2 emissions changes” (they are likely to INCREASE!!!)
“based on the analysis, EPA anticipates that the proposed EGU New Source GHG Standards will result in negligible CO2 emission changes”
Read EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis -see p. 1-4: http://tinyurl.com/lon5dw2
Update #1:
The Washington Post story makes my point:
“We’re providing at least some certainty here that [coal plants] have an opportunity to be around in a carbon-constrained world,” McCarthy said in an interview. “The president wants every fuel to be able to compete in a clean environment.”
Update #2 – The EPA set ground rules for the public hearing on the proposal in Washington DC (date not set yet) – these restrictions include outrageous bans on protest, photography in the hearing room, and signs:
Because this hearing is being held at U.S. government facilities, individuals planning to attend the hearing should be prepared to show valid picture identification to the security staff in order to gain access to the meeting room. In addition, you will need to obtain a property pass for any personal belongings you bring with you. Upon leaving the building, you will be required to return this property pass to the security desk. No large signs will be allowed in the building, cameras may only be used outside of the building and demonstrations will not be allowed on federal property for security reasons. (proposal @ p. 3)
That means I can’t photograph witnesses who testify and the typical pre-hearinng protest outside the hearing room is banned.
I can understand a theoretical (but sham) concern about signs as a safety hazard, but how can EPA possibly find a valid legal basis to ban cameras and protests?
I assume cameras are prohibited in all federal buildings – but this is a public hearing where sham “security” concerns MUST be secondary to Constitutional rights.
Is this kind of suppression of constitutional rights also part of the “new normal”?
Welcome to the national security surveillance state, under a former “Professor of Constitutional law”.