Planetary Ruin

President Obama and his obedient lap dogs are out in full force this week attempting to convince voters that those evil guys on Wall Street have moved on from destroying the value of their homes to artificially raising the price of gasoline. Soon they are coming for your first born. From one of Obama’s speeches this week:

So today, we’re announcing new steps to strengthen oversight of energy markets.  Things that we can do administratively, we are doing.  And I call on Congress to pass a package of measures to crack down on illegal activity and hold accountable those who manipulate the market for private gain at the expense of millions of working families.  And be specific.

First, Congress should provide immediate funding to put more cops on the beat to monitor activity in energy markets.  This funding would also upgrade technology so that our surveillance and enforcement officers aren’t hamstrung by older and less sophisticated tools than the ones that traders are using.  We should strengthen protections for American consumers, not gut them.  And these markets have expanded significantly.

Now the ability to place blame for rising gasoline prices on Wall Street (or Republicans) is good politics, but its not true. The Center for American Progress report linked to above, chillingly titled “Is Big Oil Rigging Gasoline Prices?” begins by alerting the reader to the fact that the American people, having been polled, believe that Wall Street must be behind the recent rise in gasoline prices. Apparently the average American’s opinion on financial speculation, oligopoly pricing, and their link to gasoline prices is sufficiently meaningful to include in an article not accusing Big Oil of manipulating oil prices, but just putting the question out there. I hastily blogged about that report here, as did the editors of RealClearEnergy.

Obama pulled the exact same stunt last year. He set up some sort of task force/executive agency/working group/etc. to make sure that there isn’t any illegal price manipulation going on. The agency never found anything, and its unclear if they even really did any investigating:

Pressed by McClatchy for details on how an active working group would be reconstituted, Carney said simply that rising prices are a worry now.

“What we are seeing now in the last several weeks and months is a new surge in the price of oil for a variety of reasons that have to do with the global oil market,” he said. “We are seeing then the concurrent spike in the price of gasoline that Americans pay at the pump, and the president believes that it’s important to be sure that there’s no fraudulent speculation involved in that — in those spikes in the price.”

As to why restart a working group if it didn’t find anything last year and went dormant, Carney offered that, “you don’t know until you investigate what you might find. And whatever they found or didn’t find a year ago is not dispositive towards what they might find or might not find as they investigate going forward.”

Just days earlier, McClatchy asked in a March 1 report what the task force had done over the past 10 months; the answer was, very little. Administration sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to say such embarrasing truths acknowledged that the working group had met only five times last year, three of those soon after the April 21 formation of the inter-agency task force. The working group now has met seven times in all, the Justice Department said Thursday.

It’s less embarrassing when you realize this is nothing more than a political stunt designed to convince voters that Obama is doing something about high gasoline prices. From here we take it away to an excellent post by an economics professor/blogger on a similarly ridiculous op-ed in the NYT:

Let me close by pointing those interested in this issue to a recent survey of academic studies of the role of speculation by Bassam Fattouh, Lutz Kilian, and Lavan Mahadeva. The authors conclude:

We identify six strands in the literature corresponding to different empirical methodologies and discuss to what extent each approach sheds light on the role of speculation. We find that the existing evidence is not supportive of an important role of speculation in driving the spot price of oil after 2003. Instead, there is strong evidence that the co-movement between spot and futures prices reflects common economic fundamentals rather than the financialization of oil futures markets.

And another post, by Craig Pirrong, an expert in energy markets who pulls no punches:

In sum, the parts of Obama’s markets aimed at speculator-manipulators are intellectually confused, empirically baseless, and deeply irresponsible because they encourage a witch hunt atmosphere by slandering (by slimy insinuations) legitimate market actors as criminal manipulators.

Well played.  Because of all the practice, no doubt.

A few other things stand out.  First, he repeats the “we use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil and we only have 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves” mantra.  Hell, even he admits he says this repeatedly: “But as I’ve said repeatedly.”  Repetition of a dubious factoid does not make the conclusion it is intended to support true. Indeed, that’s a staple of the Big Lie.

Second, he continues to take credit for increased US oil output when in fact he and his administration don’t have a damn thing to do with it, except that it could have been higher yet without some of their counterproductive policies.

Third, take a look at this remark: “We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some.”  To which my first response is:  What do you mean “we” kimosabe? Again, a guy who has never done anything that would risk getting a callous taking credit for the actions of those that actually put hands to shovel and made some truly shovel ready projects realities.  Moreover, it raises the question: if building so much pipeline capacity is such a great thing, why is he doing everything in his power to stall or stop Keystone?  Is that uniquely damaging? (To the environment, I mean, not to the fortunes of Buffett’s BNSF.)

A rule of thumb to keep in mind.  Whenever Obama talks about energy generally, and speculation specifically, it is safe to conclude you are being manipulated: that’s not at all speculative.

Read the rest here. It’s definitely disconcerting that the President is denigrating a completely legitimate, and valuable, aspect of our market economy.

The European Union (EU) preens itself on being the global leader in the fight against climate change. EU politicians scold the USA for ’failing’ to ratify Kyoto Protocol and enact cap-and-trade. Within the EU, the UK champions the most aggressive climate policies. So the UK’s carbon footprint must be shrinking, right?

Not according to a new report by the UK’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra). The UK’s total net carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose 35% between 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol baseline year) and 2005. Emissions declined by 9% from 2008 to 2009 due to the worldwide recession. Nonetheless, the country’s carbon footprint was 20% bigger in 2009 than in 1990. How can this be?

Defra used a life cycle analysis (LCA) to estimate the UK economy’s net emissions. The agency examined not only the CO2 emitted by households and firms within the UK but also the emissions induced by the UK’s demand for imported goods. Carbon dioxide is emitted when goods are manufactured for export in, say, China, and then again when those goods are transported to the UK.

Emissions “embedded” in UK imports are increasing much faster than emissions from domestic production are declining. From 1990 to 2009, CO2 emitted by UK households and firms decreased by 14%. During the same period, emissions from imports directly used by UK consumers increased by 79% and emissions from imports used by UK businesses increased by 128%.

The Kyoto Protocol does not “cover” (regulate) import-induced emissions. So under Kyoto’s accounting rules, UK emissions are down. In reality, the UK has outsourced a sizeable chunk of its emissions along with its heavy industry. As one blogger commented, “The UK’s outsourced emissions almost double its carbon footprint.”

Source: Defra, UK’s Carbon Footprint 1990-2009

Bait-and-switch is one of the oldest tricks of deceptive advertising. The used-car dealer “baits” you onto the lot with an ad promising low interest payments on the car of your dreams. When you get there, the dealer regretfully informs you the car has already been sold. But, no, you haven’t wasted your time, because he’s got this other great car – the “switch” — which has so many superior features and it will only cost you a little more per month.

An even less ethical variant of this tactic is employed in politics. Party A in a negotiation gives an assurance or promise to obtain Party B’s support for a law or regulation. Party A then reneges on the deal once the policy is on the books. EPA’s recently proposed “Carbon Pollution Standard” Rule is a posterchild for this tactic.

EPA is proposing a carbon dioxide (CO2) “new source performance standard” (NSPS) for fossil-fuel power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). EPA has developed NSPS for numerous industrial source categories such as municipal waste combustors, solid waste landfills, medical waste incinerators, cement plants, nitric oxide plants, copper smelters, steel plants, pulp mills, coal utility boilers, auto and truck surface coating operations, and natural gas turbines.

For each source category, the NSPS ”reflects the degree of emission limitation achievable through the application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.”

Okay, what does this have to do with bait and switch?

In general, NSPS are less stringent than “best available control technology” (BACT) standards — the individually-tailored emission control requirements owners or operators must meet to obtain a CAA permit to build or modify a major emitting facility. NSPS establishes the minimum emission control standard or “floor” for determining a facility’s BACT requirements. Under CAA sec. 169(3), application of BACT may not result in emissions that exceed those allowed by the applicable NSPS. The point of BACT is to push individual sources to make deeper emission reductions than the category-wide performance standard requires. In EPA’s words:

The NSPS are established after long and careful consideration of a standard that can be reasonably achieved by new source anywhere in the nation. This means that even a very recent NSPS does not represent the best technology available; it instead represents the best technology available nationwide, regardless of climate, water availability, and many other highly variable case-specific factors. The NSPS is the least common denominator and must be met; there are no variances. The BACT requirement, on the other hand, is the greatest degree of emissions control that can be achieved at a specific source and accounts for site-specific variables on a case-by-case basis.

Since an applicable NSPS must always be met, it provides a legal “floor” for the BACT, which cannot be less stringent. A BACT determination should nearly always be more stringent than the NSPS because the NSPS establishes what every source can achieve, not the best that a source could do.

As EPA interprets the CAA, new and modified major emitting facilities became subject to BACT for CO2 on Jan. 2, 2011 — the day EPA’s motor vehicle greenhouse gas emission standards took effect, making CO2 a “regulated air pollutant.” A big concern of the electric power industry was whether EPA might define BACT so stringently that a coal-fired power plant seeking to build a new unit or modify an existing unit would have to switch from coal to natural gas. (Natural gas power plants emit only about half as much CO2 per megawatt hour as coal power plants do.)

There was much angst and speculation about this in 2009 and 2010 but no definitive statement from EPA until March 2011, when the agency published a guidance document for ‘stakeholders.’ The document states that BACT for CO2 will not require fuel switching, nor will EPA ”redefine the source” such that coal boilers are held to the same standard as gas turbines:

The CAA includes “clean fuels” in the definition of BACT. Thus, clean fuels which would reduce GHG emissions should be considered, but EPA has recognized that the initial list of control options for a BACT analysis does not need to include “clean fuel” options that would fundamentally redefine the source. Such options include those that would require a permit applicant to switch to a primary fuel type (i.e., coal, natural gas, or biomass) other than the type of fuel that an applicant proposes to use for its primary combustion process. For example, when an applicant proposes to construct a coal-fired steam electric generating unit, EPA continues to believe that permitting authorities can show in most cases that the option of using natural gas as a primary fuel would fundamentally redefine a coal-fired electric generating unit.

EPA reiterates this assurance in a Q&A document accompanying the guidance:

12. Does this guidance say that fuel switching (coal to natural gas) should be selected as BACT for a power plant?

• No.
• BACT should consider the most energy efficient design and control options for a proposed source.
• BACT should also include consideration of “clean fuels” that may produce fewer emissions but does not necessarily require a different type of fuel from the one proposed, particularly when it can be shown that using another type of fuel would be inconsistent with the fundamental purpose of the facility.

Yet despite EPA’s assurance that BACT, which usually is more stringent than NSPS, will not require fuel switching or redefine coal power plants into the same source category as natural gas power plants, EPA’s “carbon pollution standard” does exactly that.

Under the proposed standard, new fossil-fuel power plants may emit no more than 1,000 lbs of carbon dioxide (CO2) per megawatt hour. About 95% of all natural gas combined cycle power plants already meet the standard (p. 115). No existing coal power plants come close; even the most efficient, on average, emit 1,800 lbs CO2/MWh (p. 134). Because carbon capture and storage (CCS) is prohibitively expensive, raising the cost of a conventional coal plant by 80% (p. 124), the only feasible way for a new coal power plant to comply is to be something other than what it is — a natural gas power plant.

As noted previously, EPA is pretending that natural gas combined cycle — a type of power plant — is a “system of emission reduction” that has been “adequately demonstrated” for coal power plants. That is absurd.

To make the “carbon pollution standard” seem reasonable, EPA proposes to redefine source categories so that coal boilers and gas turbines are both equally “fossil-fuel electric generating units.” But redefining coal power plants is exactly what EPA said it would not do in the BACT guidance document.

As should go without saying, Congress never voted to ban new coal generation. Indeed, Congress declined to adopt similar CO2 performance standards for coal power plants when Senate leaders pulled the plug on cap-and-trade. Section 116 of the Waxman-Markey bill (the American Clean Energy and Security Act) would have established NSPS requiring new coal power plants to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% during 2009-2020 and 65% after 2020. Congress did not adopt this agenda because the public rejected it. Waxman-Markey became politically radioactive soon after it narrowly passed in the House. In the November 2010 elections, 29 Democrats who voted for Waxman-Markey got the boot.

Congressional efforts to rein in EPA — particularly Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval to overturn EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Rule and Sen. James Inhofe’s Energy Tax Prevention Act – would have gained more traction had EPA fessed up in 2009, 2010, or even 2011 that, come 2012, it would promulgate CO2 performance standards that no commercially viable coal plant could meet.

It’s an old story, but one that can’t be told too often. EPA is legislating climate policy – implementing an agenda the people’s representatives have not approved and would reject if put to a vote.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) has vowed to kill the “carbon pollution standard” via a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval (Greenwire, subscription required). For those of us who still respect the separation of powers, ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Energy policy in Georgia isn’t made by the State legislature. Nor is it made by Governor Nathan Deal. Indeed, energy policy in Georgia isn’t made by any public official in the State. Instead, the most important energy decisions in Georgia are rendered by unelected EPA bureaucrats and environmentalist lawyers.

Welcome to energy policymaking in the Obama age.

Georgia is one of the fastest growing States in the nation. With more people necessarily comes higher demand for electricity. In order to meet the State’s growing need for power, a consortium of non-profit local utilities known as Power4Georgians (P4G) planned on building two 850 megawatt coal fired power plants, one in Washington County and the other in Ben Hill County.

P4G intended to build the Washington County plant first, but the project has been held in up for two years in the courts by relentless anti-coal environmentalist litigation organizations led by the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal Campaign.” This is demonstrated by the following brief timeline:

• On April 8, 2010, the Georgia Environmental Protection Division issued the final air permits for Power4Georgian’s proposed coal-fired power plant in Washington County. They were immediately challenged by environmentalist litigants led by the Sierra Club.
• On December 16, Georgia Judge Ronit Walker ruled in favor of the environmentalist petitioners and rejected the air permit for Power4Georgians’ proposed coal-fired power plant in Washington County.
• On November 21, 2011, Georgia environmental regulators re-issued an air permit for the proposed coal-fired power plant in Washington Country.
• On December 16, 2012 the Southern Environmental Law Center and GreenLaw challenged the Georgia Environmental Protection Division’s air quality permit in the Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearings on behalf of the Fall-line Alliance for a Clean Environment, Ogeechee Riverkeeper, Sierra Club’s Georgia Chapter, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.

EPA acted as a de facto intervener on behalf the environmentalist petitioners. As this blog has explained repeatedly, EPA is now waging a regulatory war on the coal industry. The Agency is imposing a series of senseless regulations that serve no public health purpose, and whose only function seems to be to price coal out of the electricity market.

In particular, the challenges brought by Sierra Club et al. relied on EPA’s ridiculous Mercury and Air Toxics Standard. By EPA’s own estimate, the mercury regulation would cost $10 billion annually, and its purpose is to protect America’s supposed population of pregnant, subsistence fisherwomen, who consume more than 300 pounds per year of self caught fish from fresh, inland water bodies. EPA fails to identify any of these purported victims. Rather, they are modeled to exist.

Earlier this week, the environmentalist obstructionists in Georgia announced that they would drop their latest legal challenge, based on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, in exchange for P4G’s commitment to install additional controls at the Washington County plant. In addition, P4G agreed to abandon its plan to build a second coal fired power plant in Ben Hill County.

To be sure, Sierra Club and its cohorts were not acting in good faith. They even admitted as much. In this week’s settlement, the environmentalist litigants agreed to drop its challenge predicated on the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, but, at the same time, they announced they would continue to object to the plant based on EPA’s recently proposed Carbon Pollution Standard*. That regulation, a proposal of which was published in today’s federal register, would effectively ban the construction of new coal fired plants. In an interview about the settlement in Wednseday’s Energy and Environment GreenWire, Jenna Garland of the Sierra Club said that, “Sierra Club and our other organizations believe that Plant Washington should need to pursue carbon pollution compliance.”

To recap the madcap: In order to meet the Peach State’s growing demand, a consortium of local utilities decided to build two coal fired power plants. Twice, Georgia public officials approved air permits for one coal fired power plant in Washington County. And twice, these State decisions were effectively invalidated by environmentalist lawyers, who challenged the permits based on nonsensical anti-coal regulations issued by President Obama’s EPA. As a result of this legal wrangling, the utility consortium agreed to cancel plans for its other planned power plant in Ben Hill County. Now, the environmentalists will launch a fresh attack in the courts on the remaining plant.

President Eisenhower wisely and presciently warned against a then-gathering (and long since entrenched) military industrial complex. A similarly sinister force is fast arising in the Obama age–the anti-industrial legal complex. Legions of environmentalist lawyers, backed by EPA’s outrageous mandates, are overwhelming local authority on energy policy with endless petitions. Only a decade ago, local officials and business decided how to invest in electricity generation; today, alarmingly, those decision are made by environmental lawyers and federal bureaucrats.

*My colleague Marlo Lewis recently wrote this excellent blog on the strangeness of the Carbon Pollution Standard.

Citing “adverse market conditions,” BrightSource Energy, a wholesale solar power generator, announced yesterday morning that it would shelve a long-planned initial public offering of 6.9 million shares that the company had hoped would fetch 21 to $23 each. The canceled IPO is a blow to the company’s backers, chief among them the American taxpayer. In April 2011, the Department of Energy awarded BrightSource a $160 million subsidy, from the same program that blew almost half a billion on Solyndra. They sure know how to pick ‘em at the DOE!

BrightSource’s setback stands in stark contrast with this week’s ultra-successful IPO by Forum Energy Technologies, an oil-services provider. The company had hoped to sell 16 million shares, but demand far exceeded expectations, and almost 19 million shares were sold, at the high end of Forum Energy’s hoped-for price. Because the services provided by Forum Energy Technologies engender a product—oil—that people actually want to buy*, the company does not need government handouts.

*Unlike, say, concentrated solar power produced by BrightSource Energy, which California utilities are forced to purchase in order to comply with a Soviet-style green energy production quota enacted by the state legislature.

49 former NASA astronauts and scientists sent a letter to NASA, requesting that they stick to using empirical data to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide, and to back off the claims of catastrophic climate change. The text of the letter is pasted below:

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

In late March, the House Judiciary Committee passed H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012, by a 20-10 vote. If enacted, the bill would make it more difficult for the Environmental Protection Agency to negotiate “sue and settle” agreements that effectively exclude States from environmental policymaking, in seeming contravention of the Clean Air Act. By making these “sue and settle” agreements more transparent, H.R. 3862 would spur a welcome rebalancing of American environmental federalism.

Federal environmental regulations pursuant to the Clean Air Act are prescribed or approved by EPA, but they are implemented by the States. This relationship is necessary because, as the law recognizes, “air pollution prevention…at its source is the primary responsibility of States and local governments.” Accordingly, the Act “establishes a partnership between EPA and the States for the attainment and maintenance of national air quality goals,” thereby reflecting the Congress’s intent to “carefully [balance] State and national interests by providing for a fair and open process in which State and local governments, and the people they represent, will be free to carry out the reasoned weighing of environmental and economic goals and needs.” Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Browner (D.C. Cir. 1995).

It is beyond dispute that the Congress wanted States and EPA to work together to improve air quality. Recently, however, EPA has found a way to ditch the States, and instead render environmental policy with environmentalist litigation groups.

Here’s how it works. An environmentalist litigation outfit like the Center for Biological Diversity sues EPA for missing a deadline to implement a regulation pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Due to the almost absolute discretion that courts give federal agencies to implement laws, EPA could squash this suit in court with ease. All EPA would have to do (and what it has done many times before*) is argue that it possesses limited resources, and, as such, the Agency must be afforded the discretion to dictate how these limited resources are used. Indeed, EPA has nowhere near the manpower nor the budget to comply with all the statutory deadlines established by the Clean Air Act; virtually no regulations are implemented on time. However, instead of challenging the lawsuit (and winning), EPA agrees to settle. Then, EPA and the environmentalist litigant negotiate a settlement (i.e., environmental policy). The resultant consent decree is then approved by a judge, lending it the force of law.

There are several troubling implications of these “sue and settle” consent decrees. For starters, they allow unelected environmentalist lawyers to create policy. Moreover, consent decrees are difficult to reverse, which means that a sitting President can use them to bind the discretion of his or her successor. (This point was aptly explained to the Judiciary Committee by New York Law School Professors David Schoenbrod and Ross Sandler. Their testimony is available here).

Even more alarming, these consent decrees deprive States of due process. As I note above, EPA has limited resources. In practice, “sue and settle” agreements effect a reworking of the priorities that determine how EPA uses its scarce resources. In this fashion, the Agency is negotiating Clean Air Act policy. But it is doing so without allowing the States to have a voice, despite the fact that the Clean Air Act stipulates that States are EPA’s partner on environmental policymaking. In written testimony about the H.R. 3862, Roger Martella of Sidley Austin LLP explains how EPA used a consent decree to circumvent the States’ right to have input on a controversial greenhouse gas performance standard:

On December 23, 2010, EPA announced a consent decree with several NGOs committing the agency to propose and finalize the first ever New Source Performance Standards for greenhouse gases. EPA agreed to promulgate such standards for utilities and refineries without any prior input from stakeholders in those industries. Specifically, EPA committed to propose the first-ever GHG NSPS for these sectors in July and December of 2011, which is an unprecedented quick schedule. In fact, the schedule was so ambitious that six months after the July deadline, the Agency has yet to propose the standards for either sector. Beyond the mere commitment of schedules and timelines, EPA also made various substantive commitments in the agreement that would ordinarily be open for public comment in a rulemaking process, such as a decision to regulate both new and existing sources in these categories, without prior industry input on the feasibility of such controls, the ability to implement in a timely manner, and the lack of adequate data to create such standards. Although the Agency ultimately held listening sessions and took comment on the agreements after finalizing them, the agreements did not materially change before being lodged with the Court.

In the passage above, Mr. Martella identifies how “sue and settle” agreements can deprive States of a meaningful voice in the policymaking process. In extreme cases, EPA has used “sue and settle” agreements to seize the States’ rightful authority.

In late 2010, for example, EPA and New Mexico officials disagreed over what controls are necessary to comply with Regional Haze, an aesthetic regulation required by the Clean Air Act. The State wanted controls that cost about $30 million, while EPA wanted controls that cost more than $700 million. At the time, New Mexico seemed to have all the leverage, because the Clean Air Act gives States the lead authority on Regional Haze decision making. EPA usurped New Mexico’s prerogatives by modifying a consent decree with WildEarth Guardians such that the Agency committed itself to a deadline that took place before the State submitted its Regional Haze plan. Thus, EPA claimed that it had no choice but to ignore the State’s plan, and impose the Agency’s preferred controls. In a recent study, I explained this matter in detail.

Simply put, “sue and settle” agreements are an affront to transparent government. H.R. 3862, the Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act of 2012, would curb the worst abuses, by forcing EPA to ensure that affected States have a seat at the table when environmental policy is made.

*In 2011, for example, the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Environmental Protection Agency to compel it to decide whether to regulate greenhouse gases from the aviation sector. On March 14, EPA argued (and won) that it had the discretion to decide how to time greenhouse gas regulations.

How much would you pay for nothing? Personally speaking, I wouldn’t pay a single cent for zero returns, and I think most Americans would agree. It is this shared sentiment that compels me to feel bad for North Dakotans, because EPA is forcing them to pay $12 million annually, for nothing.

I am not exaggerating. EPA last Friday promulgated a final Regional Haze regulation for North Dakota, which requires almost $12 million in annual compliance costs, in exchange for “benefits” that are literally invisible.

I’ve written about the Regional Haze rule many times before on this blog (see here, here, here, and here). It was created by the Congress in 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Its purpose is to improve visibility at federal national parks and wilderness areas. The hallmark of the Regional Haze provision is the unique degree of primacy accorded to the States over EPA. Because Regional Haze is an aesthetic regulation—and not a public health regulation—the Congress intended for the States to be the lead decision makers.

Despite the Congress’s intent, EPA has aggressively interpreted its Regional Haze prerogatives so as to usurp the States’ rightful authority. Indeed, North Dakota is the fourth State subject to a federal implementation plan for Regional Haze. North Dakota Department of Health had spent years creating a visibility improvement plan that was submitted in the summer of 2011. The State plan met all of the criteria established by the Clean Air Act and its implementing rules, so it was eminently approvable. It would have cost $600,000 a year.

Last Friday, however, EPA disapproved North Dakota’s Regional Haze strategy, and imposed almost $13 million/year in additional Regional Haze controls at two power plants. In the rulemaking, the Agency stated that these controls were “cost-effective.” This is an eye-opening declaration, in light of the fact that these supposedly “cost-effective” controls fail to achieve a perceptible improvement in visibility.

Don’t take my word for it! The eyes never lie. Below, I’ve used a visibility modeling software program (WinHaze) in order to demonstrate the difference between North Dakota’s plan and that imposed by EPA. See for yourself:

Can you tell a difference? I can’t, and I’ve been staring at these photos intensely, as if they were Magic Eye posters. As the images above make clear, EPA’s Regional Haze regulation is all pain and no gain in North Dakota.

The green echo chamber is reverberating with reports about a new study claiming that the 468 megawatt Cape Wind project, a planned wind farm off the Cape Cod coast, would save New England ratepayers $7.2 billion through 2036. When I first encountered news of the study, I was surprised, because 75% of Cape Wind’s expected output is already under contract, at rates that are more than twice the average price of electricity in the region. How could it be that adding expensive power to a regional grid reduces electricity rates?

This mystery was solved by Randy Hunt, a Massachusetts state representative and part time myth-buster. In an excellent blog post, Mr. Hunt explains that the new Cape Wind rate impact study suffers from a significant flaw. Namely, it fails to account for the cost of wind power, which seems like a pretty big oversight for an analysis that purports to estimate the cost of wind power.

Then again, the study was commissioned by the developers who stand to make a mint with the Cape Wind project, so it’s not shocking that the analysis would be of such dubious quality. What is somewhat surprising, however, is the alacrity with which environmentalist media has trumpeted this bogus report.

In a recent post, I explained how President Obama’s Interior Department has undertaken a radical reinterpretation of the 1977 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) that threatens to shut down coal production in Appalachia. In a nutshell, SMCRA authorizes coal surface mining, but now the Obama administration is poised to reinterpret the law such that it bans surface coal mining. (Read all about it, here). This is the latest salvo in the President’s war on coal; if implemented, it would effectively destroy the Appalachian coal industry.

Despite the enormous consequences at stake—an industry hangs in the balance—the Department of the Interior has deliberated largely in secret. Besides an Associated Press report on a leaked draft impact analysis, which suggested that the reinterpreted law would eliminate 7,000 jobs in Appalachia, information about the proposed rewrite has been scant.

For more than a year, House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Washington) has been asking the Obama administration for information about the pending SMCRA rulemaking. And for more than a year, the Interior Department has refused to comply with Chairman Hasting’s requests. This is particularly galling given that the information sought by Hastings can hardly be deemed as controversial. Basically, he wants the Interior Department to produce the draft Environmental Impact Statement and Regulatory Impact Analysis. These are standard procedural documents common to almost all major regulations. More importantly, these analyses were financed by taxpayers. Why wouldn’t a Member of Congress have a right to see documents that were created with taxpayer money, and which pertain to a reinterpretation of a law passed by the Congress? Simply put, there is no legitimate reason for the Obama administration to resist, especially in light of its boasts of being the most open and transparent administration, ever.

Last week marked the end of Chairman Hasting’s patience with the administration’s stonewalling. On Thursday, he subpoenaed the Interior Department, seeking:

• All recordings, and complete and unredacted transcripts of recordings, of meetings between the Department and contractors regarding the rewrite of the rule. This includes, but is not limited to, the known 43 digital audio recordings totaling approximately 30 hours.
• Complete and unredacted versions of email communications previously provided to the Committee and documents reviewed by Committee staff in camera.
• All documents related to the development of the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the coal production regulation.
• Complete drafts of the Environmental Impact Statement and the Regulatory Impact Analysis as of January 31, 2011 for the Administration’s rewrite of the coal production regulation.
• Complete current drafts of the Environmental Impact Statement and the Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Administration’s rewrite of the coal production rule, as well as versions created since January 31, 2011.

Chairman Hastings gave the Interior Department until April 12, 2012 to comply. In a press release, his office indicated that this action was only the first step, and that “Additional categories of documents, not included in this subpoena but previously requested as far back as February of 2011, that are broader in scope and will likely produce a greater volume of responsive material are anticipated to be sought in the near future.”