By Rob Nikolewski / October 2, 2015 / 17 Comments
THE OZONE PRICE TAG: The cost of the EPA’s new rules for
reducing ground-level ozone for cities like Houston is a matter of dispute.
When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced
Thursday it was toughening the country’s rules for ground-level ozone — what’s
commonly known as smog, which comes from sources such as tailpipes and
smokestacks — it caught flak from environmental groups and business officials.
But when all is said and done, the people most affected
financially figures to be everyday Americans who will almost certainly pay
higher prices in their utility bills and the products they buy.
“They’re going to pay more for everything that’s made in
the United States, if those things continue to be made in the United States,”
said Dan Kish, senior energy and regulatory policy expert at
Institute for Energy Research.
EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy made the long-awaited ozone announcement early
Thursday afternoon, deciding to lower the amount of ozone in the air from 75
parts per billion to 70 parts per billion.
“If someone tells your life will change because of this,
I will say it will only change for the better,” McCarthy said in a conference
call with energy and environmental reporters.
Even though many came into Thursday’s announcement
expecting EPA to set a standard of 65 ppb, business groups still said the
regulation will result in more burdensome and expensive changes.
On the opposite spectrum, environmental and health groups
complained EPA should have strengthened the standard to 60 ppb.
“We know that this regulation could have been worse, but
it still feels like a punch in the gut,” said Tom Riordan,
CEO and president of a metals-manufacturing company based in Wisconsin that has
about 2,100 employees. “Manufacturers are tough and resilient but when
Washington puts politics above job creation, we still pay a price.”
“This weak-kneed action leaves children, seniors and
asthmatics without the protection doctors say they need from this dangerous
pollutant,” said David Baron, managing attorney for the environmental
group Earthjustice.
How much will the new rule cost the average American?
Business groups insist the new regulation will be remarkably expensive.
The National Association of Manufacturers released a
study in February claiming updated rules will cost the U.S. economy $1.7 trillion
between 2017 and 2040. Another study compiled by NERA Economic Consulting at the request
of the manufacturing group estimated that reducing ozone regulations to 65 ppb
would cost the average household $830 a year.
McCarthy has dismissed those numbers as exaggerated and
on Thursday said, “The National Association of Manufacturers has said a lot of
things in the last 30 years … I am not looking at what other people are
saying.”
EPA has emphasized its own studies that reported
ground-level ozone regulations at 70 ppb translates into numerous public health
benefits — reducing the number of sick days and emergency room visits, for
example — that would save $6.4 billion-$13 billion per year by 2025. But at the
same time, when the rules were first proposed late last year EPA acknowledged a
compliance cost of close to $3.9 billion a year by 2025.
“Obviously, this is going to cost a lot,” said Kish of
IER, a group that looks to solve energy and environmental issues with
free-market solutions and opposed toughening the ozone standards. “If
communities fail to be in compliance with this, EPA is in position to begin not
allowing permits. If a factory wants to be built, they can say, ‘Sorry, we
can’t give you any permits because you happen to be out of compliance.’ ”
A big reason for the expense? Stricter ozone regulations
means factories and power plants have to install scrubbers and other
technologies on smokestacks to reduce the chemicals put into the air. Scrubbers
can cost tens of millions of dollars and each degree that the ozone standard is
lowered, the costs pile up.
But McCarthy said she’s confident the new rule will not
be overly burdensome and the agency “is giving states plenty of time” to meet
the standard by 2025.
“The science clearly tells us that 75 ppb is not
adequately protecting public health,” McCarthy said.
As for predictions that large numbers of counties across
the country won’t be able to meet the goals, McCarthy said, “We can’t tell you
the number exactly, but we’ve looked at modeling this issue.”
She added that EPA projections say just 14 counties
outside of California will be out of attainment by 2025.
“Ultimately, the existing level of 75 (ppb) was
adequate,” Kish said. “Some communities haven’t even met the 75 limit. One of
the things elected officials around the country have said is, why not wait
until we meet the existing limit, which we’ve been working hard on?”
George Heartwell, the mayor of Grand Rapids, Michigan,
appeared on the conference call with McCarthy in support of lowering the ozone
level to 70 ppb.
“I’m confident in the time allowed in this new rule we’ll
be able to meet the new standard,” Heartwell said. “I strongly believe the
crisis of global warming and its effects on the environment provide us with
moral imperatives. We must be good stewards.”
But other elected officials have pushed back at EPA —
even those who are usually supportive of the Obama administration.
Last month, Colorado’s
top two Democrats — Gov. John Hickenlooper and U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet —
said they were “deeply concerned” whether the Rocky Mountain State could afford
to make the changes needed and echoed complaints from other high-altitude states such as New Mexico
that stricter ozone standards hurt them more than states closer to sea level.
“Because of pollution that’s coming in from other Western
states, from across the globe, from across wildfires in the West, we have
significant parts of our state that would be non-attainment zones from the very
beginning of the law,” Bennett said. “That doesn’t make any sense, it’s not
going to work.”
“These are always difficult decisions,” McCarthy said.
“What the Clean Air Act tells me to do is to make my best judgment based on the
science … It should be no less than what I need to do and no more. In the end
it’s a judgment call by the (EPA) administrator … I realized how serious this
decision is. I did not base it on a popularity contest.”
When will the new rule go into effect? EPA will designate
areas in 2017. Those that don’t attain 70 ppb will have from 2020 to 2037 to
meet the standard, with the deadlines varying based on the severity of their
ozone pollution.
“For me, what does this mean for foregone investment?”
Kish said. “People who might invest in something or want to expand something.
It’s going to limit opportunities that would have otherwise been there. The
hidden costs of this is often what’s hardest to determine but … they’re real,
they’re palpable. People make business decisions based on this.”
Audit: IRS improperly withholding information requested by
taxpayers- The federal agency that wants your money still has a
problem with transparency. A new audit shows the Internal Revenue Service improperly withheld information
from requesters under the Freedom
of Information Act 12.3 percent of the time. The Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration, or TIGTA, the IRS’ auditor, reviewed a
statistically valid sample of 65 FOIA requests and found eight requests for
which the tax collector improperly withheld information. A new audit shows the IRS failed to release
information in Freedom of Information Act requests from taxpayers in 12 percent
of the cases reviewed. “The eight cases
we identified included improperly withheld information of examination and
collection activity and other tax return information that the taxpayer or
authorized Power of Attorney should have received,” the audit states. Extrapolated,
some 346 FOIA/Privacy Act requests may have had information erroneously
withheld between Oct. 1, 2013, and Sept. 30, 2014, according to the audit. TIGTA also found that the IRS did not release 7.3 percent
of the Internal
Revenue Code information requests reviewed — information that should have
been open to the requester.
“Although the IRS properly released thousands of pages
from these documents, taxpayer rights still may have been violated because some
information was erroneously withheld,” the audit notes….
Criminalizing climate science:‘It’s a crazy situation,’ says
Georgia Tech scientist - Climate scientist Judith
Curry says data tell her the earth’s surface temperature is definitely
warming and humans have something to do with it. In the increasingly polarized
world of climate research where, with increasing frequency, one side is labeled
“deniers” and the other is called “alarmists,” the decorated
scientist at Georgia Tech has become a target. But the fire isn’t coming from those who
deride her conclusions about a hotter planet, but instead from scientists who
actually agree with her. Why? Because
Curry questions how much of the earth’s warming can be attributed to humans and
is resistant to calling for political prescriptions for climate change. “We
have this politically correct, green position that all scientists are supposed
to pledge allegiance to,” Curry told Watchdog.org. “I’m not going to pledge
allegiance to that silliness.”…
My Take – It won’t be long before all the Warmists will
be touting this tune because their calls for the criminalization of daring to deny
AGW are going to come back to haunt them. Why?
Because fraud is a crime! Taking
public money to promote a green narative with false “data” is fraud – and that’s a
crime. And that’s what all the Warmists have
done, including the universities. I
disagree with her entirely. Science was
and is fraught with criminals, starting with Rachel Carson and continuing with
the AGW scaremongers, and they need to be prosecuted just like any other
criminal. We need to get over this idea
that a PhD is somehow immune to the values of society because they’re educated
in highly technical fields. These are people
who’ve placed government grant money over truth and integrity and spew out
fraudulent claims and fraudulent “science” - much of which is only discovered
when someone tries to duplicate their work and fails – over and over
again. These people are overeducated under-smart
criminals and need to be prosecuted- and if found guilty - receive the full weight of civil and
criminal penalties for their actions! And the bureaucrats and politicians who've knowingly supported this massive scam on human society should be prosecuted also, starting with Al Gore! Period!
Right-to-work 2.0: Lawmaker wants to reform occupational
licensing in Wisconsin – Call
it right-to-work 2.0. A bill currently being considered in the state Assembly would
prevent Wisconsin municipalities from creating new occupational and
professional licenses. “I think what we’re attempting to create could properly
be called right-to-work, because you wouldn’t have to worry about
municipalities creating onerous requirements you must meet in order to practice
your profession” said State Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield. Kooyenga, who introduced AB 116, has long been interested in reforming how
occupations are licensed. “I’ve always
been pretty passionate about this,” Kooyenga told Wisconsin Watchdog.
“Licensing creates a barrier to work.” “Occupational
licensing is the biggest issue in labor economics today,” said Lee McGrath, legislative
counsel for the Institute for Justice.
IJ is a public interest law firm which specializes in economic liberty
litigation. “About 25 percent of people in this country need permission from
the government in order to pursue their calling. That’s far larger than the
percentage of people who are union members or who earn the minimum wage,”
McGrath explained….
Minnesota weather clouds solar power potential - If
you think being a TV meteorologist is a crapshoot, try forecasting the amount
of solar power the sun will generate for the grid on a given day. First year results from a Twin Cities solar
power demonstration project show Minnesota’s moody meteorology makes the sun a
relatively unpredictable source of electrical generation, but the fluctuation
doesn’t appear to faze the state’s booming solar
industry. A state mandate requires investor-owned utilities
to generate 1.5 percent of electrical power from solar by 2020, one way or
another. “We’ve seen pretty significant
output differences between December and June and July, which is anticipated,
though I guess we didn’t have a firm concept of how large of a difference that
might have been, when we started the project,” said Andy Bergrud, senior
engineering project manager for Great River Energy……GRE recorded ideal weather
conditions — clear, sunny days from sun-up to sunset — just 10 percent of the
time. Surprisingly, none of the perfect days came during typically sunnier,
summer months.
Vermont jobs outlook possibly worse than college students think
- A recent survey shows college graduates are leaving Vermont because
they think the state has a bad jobs outlook. Depending on which employment data
they look at, the situation may be even worse than they think. In a survey conducted by the Vermont Department of Labor
and St. Michael’s College, more than 60 percent of graduates, and 75 percent of
seniors, said they planned to leave Vermont after college — or said they
already left. Just 39.8 percent of
graduates said they were staying in Vermont post-graduation, and only 24.5
percent of seniors said they plan to stay, according to a statement from the
governor’s office. Among graduates who
already left, 36.6 percent cited a “reported lack of job availability” as the
reason for leaving. Of seniors who plan to leave, 38.1 percent said a “reported
lack of available jobs” would be a key factor.
Responding to the news, Gov. Peter Shumlin blasted negative
“perceptions” and touted 2,000 job openings among employers who attended the
Labor Department’s mid-September job fair. Cabot, General Dynamics, Green
Mountain Power and Dealer.com, among other companies, are “clamoring for the
exact graduates who are leaving our state,” Shumlin said. Despite Shumlin’s protestation, state and
federal labor data suggest the students may be on to something….
No comments:
Post a Comment