Posts Tagged ‘EPA’

Testimony HB11-1291 William Yeatman and Amy Oliver

Colorado has a new State Implementation Plan for Regional Haze Plan, it is needlessly costly.
Who failed the consumer? Is the process flawed? When changes need to be made to a highly technical and complicated plan, is it reasonable for a 5 member committee to decide the fate of the changes in a few hours? We suspect most consumers are not even aware of this process, so there appears to be no penalty for bad decisions.

We got involved in the discussions about this plan because there were recommendations that would be costly to consumers. Here is what we learned:

Some backgound:
Under federal law, each state is required to prepare a state implementation plan (SIP) to meet specific requirements of the national Clean Air Act.  In Colorado, the Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) is the Department of Public Health and Environment is responsible for preparing and revising the SIP.  The Colorado SIP underwent a major revision in 2010 and the resulting report was submitted to the General Assembly on Jan 14, 2011. For more information about the State Implementation Plan, click here.

The plan adds requirements to power providers which will result in increases to rates paid by consumers for electricity.  This is a 1900 page report not to mention the many pages of hearing documents describing the plan.

Members of the General Assembly had until February 15 to request that the Legislative Council Committee of the General Assembly hold a public hearing to review the report.  If a hearing is requested, the changes to the SIP cannot be submitted until after the hearing is completed.  If no member requests a hearing, the SIP can be submitted to the EPA. A hearing was requested.
March 25, 2011 Hearing
A hearing by the Legislative Council Committee was held on March 25,  2011.  The only consumer to give testimony at the hearing was Carol Kirkstadt a resident of Loveland, CO.  She requested that the recommendations for both the Craig 1&2 Plants and the Rawhide plant be removed.  She stated that

It is irrational to spend over $28 million dollars a year for 20 years in the hopes of achieving an imperceptible improvement in visibility (measured at the Mt Zirkel wilderness area).

Here is an article by Colorado Consumer Coalition, “Potentially costly clean-air rules: Was public left out of the process?”
Article by William Yeatman at Competitive Enterprise Institute regarding the Regional Haze Plan and the need for the legislature to get involved.
April 19 Hearing HB11-1291
HB11-1291would approve the SIP as written.  At the hearing held April 19 by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs,  Ms. Kirkstadt again requested that the recommendations for Craig Units 1&2 and Rawhide be removed.  She revised her recommendation to also include the Hayden 1&2 plants. You can watch the testimony here. Also here is a video of testimony by Amy Oliver and William Yeatman.  William makes a plea to take time to evaluate needed changes, no need to rush this legislation thru.

Here is an article byAmy Oliver (Independence Institute) summarizing the hearing.

This article by the Consumer Coalition includes testimony by Paul Ireland, “(Colorado Public Utilities Commission) PUC’s OK on high-cost air-quality plan was predetermined”. Mr. Ireland recommended HB11-1291 be rejected in favor of SB11-236. SB11-236 would save money and be more prudent for Colorado. Here is part of Mr. Ireland’s testimony:

As consultant to the PUC, I had unique access to all confidential and highly confidential information from Xcel and am convinced that Xcel’s preferred plan, called “case 5B,” is the best choice for ratepayers and the utility. This plan keeps Cherokee 4 on coal and adds an SCR for NOx control. It is the better choice than that contained in the PUC’s final ruling. Scenario 5B – which retires some coal plants, and upgrades others – is clearly the least expensive case for Colorado ratepayers. Even Xcel recommended this plan but was overruled by the Commission chairman, who ignored facts, costs and steamrolled his own staff to reach a nonsensical and expensive decision.

April 25 Hearing on two bills recommending changes to the SIP – both died in committee.
On April 25 two bills recommending changes to the SIP plan were heard by the Senate Committee on State, Veterans and Military Affairs both were “postponed indefinitely”
1)  SB 11- 237 – Introduced by Senator Kevin Lundberg.
The bill would disapprove the portions of the Regional Haze Emissions Plan relating to the requirement for emission controls for the Hayden Electric Generating Units. The bill states that the requirements for the Hayden Plants are more stringent than or otherwise not required by the federal “Clean Air Act” and are not justified by the cost of the controls in comparison with the benefits to public health and the environment.

2) SB11 – 236 Introduced by Senator Lois Tochtrop. The bill would revise the SIP to use (Colorado Public Service Company) PSCo’s emission reduction plan scenario 5B, a less costly alternative.

Legislators miss opportunity to protect consumers – HB11-1291 signed into law.
On April 11th, the House voted 58-7 to pass HB11-1291. (We wonder how many member of the House that voted for this bill, knew what they were voting for? How many had time to read the SIP Plan?).  At the hearing on April 19th the Senate Committee on State, Veterans & Military Affairs referred the bill.  The Senate passed the bill 25 – 10 on April 27, 2011.

Here is a summary by Consumer Coalition dated May 12, 2011, “Consumers will pay for fast-tracked air legislation – now law”

Get informed and attend the hearing on March 25th. Here are some questions that come to mind:
What is the justification for switching from coal to natural gas for electricity generation?
How “clean” does our air need to be?  Are there any benefits regarding public health?
Will HB1365 really “cut air pollution and create jobs” as Governor Ritter claimed? And at what cost?

These articles by William Yeatman from Competitive Enterprise Institute offers other issues of concern: Senate Republicans ask for review of CDPHE’s Regional Haze Plan, dated Feb 16, 2011 and In 2011, the New Energy Economy will cost Colorodans …, dated March 11, 2011

Here is a link to the Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan prepared by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division of CDPHE and approved by the Air Quality Control Commission.

Colorado has a State Implementation Plan (SIP) created by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) which is developed to assure attainment and maintenance of the Nation Ambient Air Quality Standards and other aspects of the federal Clean Air Act.

State statute requires the Air Quality Control Commission (The members of the AQQC are appointed by the governor) to submit by January 15 each year changes to the State Implementation Plan. This plan would go direct to the EPA unless members of the Colorado General Assembly request a hearing.  Fortunately some of our senators and representatives have requested a hearing. The hearing is scheduled for March 25 at 1:30 pm in room HCR0112. To check the Colorado General Assembly calendar, click here. Here is one of the reasons stated by our representatives for the hearing: “concern that the SIP includes requirements that are more stringent than what is currently required under the federal Clean Air Act.

In 2007, Congress passed an energy bill that included new standards for lighting.  The bill required roughly 25% greater efficiency for light bulbs, phased in from  2012 through 2014.  This requirement effectively banned the sale of most incandescent light bulbs.  But, in their enthusiasm for favoring light bulbs that use less energy they failed to consider other consequences.

Here are some of the unintended consequences:

Loss of Manufacturing Jobs in US: General Electric has closed factories in Kentucky and Ohio and recently announced that it is closing its major incandescent factory in Virginia. Take a look at your new CFL bulbs (compact fluorescent), you will see they are “Made in China“. For an article about this by the Heritage Foundation, click here.

Health Issues: claims that fluorescent light can trigger various ailments, including migraines and epilepsy. Here is an article at the DailyMail (UK) dated January 2009 about this.

Toxic Exposure: Mercury in the new compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs require special cleanup and disposal procedures. See details in this article at the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) web site.

Similar legislation was passed in Europe and Canada. In British Columbia, Canada, stores are banned from restocking incandescent light bulbs in popular 75 and 100-watt sizes beginning in Jan 2011. As a result, according to the Vancouver Sun (article dated January 20, 2011) “Readers are furious at being told that they will not be able to buy the standard bulbs”. An article at TheLocal dated Dec 3, 2010 (German’s News in English), you will find an article stating “Consumer groups call for end to EU light bulb ban”

Representative Joe Barton (TX -6) has introduced a bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, H.R.91 – Better Use Light Bulbs Act which would repeal amendments to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act with respect to lighting energy efficiency. We recommend you contact your Representative in Congress and ask them to co-sponsor H.R. 91.

Malaria kills more than one million children under five years of age every year.  In some area of Africa over 40% of the population can be infected with malaria at any given time.

Malaria persists through an unbroken chain of infection between human and mosquito hosts. DDT is needed to control malaria, however in 1972 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) banned the use of DDT in the US.
Similar bans and lack of funding to use DDT have resulted a large increase in malaria cases especially in Africa.

Other efforts to eradicate malaria in recent years have not been not effective. In spite of the activity by environmental groups to restrict the use of DDT there is ample evidence that DDT is safe for humans and the environment and should be used to control malaria.

A recent documentary film, 3 Billion & Counting: The Cost of Banning DDT has recently been released. The film describes the circumstances surrounding the ban on DDT and the cost in human lives that this decision made. Click here for information about the film.

According to the EPA the reason for the DDT ban by the EPA was “unacceptable risks to the environment and potential harm to human health” – looks like the EPA needs to revisit this conclusion!

Here are a few articles for more information:

Free the Fight against Malaria posted November 15, 2010 at NCPA (National Center for Policy Analysis)

Article by Paul Driessen dated September 11, 2010 posted at SPPI

The Deadly War against DDT by Elizabeth Whelan posted on National Review Online

The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don’t Want You To Know About – Because They Helped Cause Them, by Iain Murray, published 2008
This book has a whole chapter on “Malaria: The Plague of Environmentalists”

On August 20, 2010 the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), announced it is delaying the release of the final ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone). Click here to view the status report filed by the EPA with the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The current schedule is to sign a final rule on the reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone Standard on or about the end of October 2010.

It seems the AGW (anthropogenic global warming ie human-caused) crowd still doesn’t “get it”. Using “global warming pollution” and calling coal a “dirty source of energy” presupposes some assumptions that have … for about 3 years now … and especially in the last year … been proved to be false. We call on the AGW crowd to do their homework and stop attacking “carbon”. We call on business to get some backbone and stop pandering to the “Green” folks … and defend the use of coal as a American-sourced low-cost fuel that makes sense to support the energy needs of America.

Some references about this attack by Greenpeace

Greenpeace International (Facebook page) calling for Facebook to use 100% renewable energy, click here to read article

Fox News Article dated Aug 2, 2010 “Greenpeace De-friends Facebook”, click here to read article.

Greenpeace International – article dated Aug 2 “Fox News takes a look at Facebook and Coal (Video)

For those who still think carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are causing unprecedented global warming and if we don’t switch to renewable energy (regardless of the cost), disaster is ahead … we recommend the following reading in addition to other articles on this web site.

Is the current global warming unusual?

This chart tells the story, for more information click here to see article at LongRangeWeather.com “Global Temperature Trends from 2500 B.C. to 2040 A.D.

Here’s an article from the Washington Times dated May 19, 2010 “Nero was hotter than Al Gore”

To quote part of the article..
The planet has never been warmer than it is right now, if you believe what global warming alarmists have to say. Mankind’s selfishness in producing “excessive” amounts of carbon dioxide has set us on a path toward global cataclysm, they insist. The problem with this tale is that it neither fits with the historical record nor with a growing body of scientific evidence.

Does increasing CO2 cause global warming?
This article by James Peden posted on The Middlebury Community Network website is a bit long but well worth you time to read.

Here are a few quotes from the Peden article
Co2 is a non-toxic, non-polluting, earth-friendly component that really is critical to our survival.

This was the fundamental mistake that Mann, Al Gore, the Oscar boys, the Nobel Committee, the IPCC, and just about everyone else on the planet made at the beginning. They immediately assumed, noticing that CO2 levels and global temperatures had a pretty good correlation, that CO2 was the culprit, and was causing global temperatures to rise. In fact, it appears it was just the opposite: rising global temperatures caused increased CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Is the “science” settled?
Please take a look at this letter sent Dec 13, 2007 to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and signed by 100 Scientists. Numerous article point out the deficiencies in efforts to model the climate, the advice in this letter … focus on helping people adapt. “Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.”

Of course there are many more recent sources, we recommend watching the videos of presentations at the 4th Annual International Conference on Climate Change (meeting held in Chicago, IL on May 16-18, 2010) posted on the Heartland Institute website.

In addition to the fact that attacking coal has no justification based on science, environmentalists and legislators and bureaucrats are causing real harm by justifying huge subsidies and proposing unnecessary rules and regulations.

Read our article about the rule submitted by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on December 15, 2009 relating to greenhouse gasses and hearing in the US Senate.

Here’s an article posted at OregonLive.com dated July 12, 2010
“Pacific Power customers face a ‘rate shock’ in 2011”

And finally, an interesting list of countries that now realize that renewable energy is a massive waste of taxpayer funds and has zero or negligible effect on CO2 emissions. Article found at The Carbon Sense Coalition (located in Australia) dated July 21, 2010 “Sunset for Subsidies” Read the rest of this entry »

Harry Reid announced yesterday, July 22 that he does not have the votes for a broad energy bill (aka climate change bill, aka legislation to curb US carbon emissions). Reid is still expected to introduce an energy bill next week that would implement offshore drilling reforms, promote natural-gas vehicles, promote energy-efficient houses and businesses, and perhaps include a target for electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar.

Meanwhile according to a New York Times article “Efforts to Block EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations Back in Play” Dated July 23, 2010. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid plans to allow a vote this year on a two-year postponement of EPA action to impose regulations on carbon emissions on stationary sources.

Additional information in Reuters article dated July 23 – “Senate climate bill in peril as Democrats delay action”

On June 10, 2010 … the US Senate debated Joint Resolution 26 – a resolution to disapprove a rule submitted by the EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) on December 15, 2009 relating to greenhouse gasses. After over 6 hours of debate the US Senate voted against the resolution 53 to 47.  You can view the entire session at CSpan Video Library


According to Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), because this (i.e., EPA action) is our worst option to reduce emissions and Congress needs time to develop a more appropriate solution, I have introduced a resolution of disapproval … I introduced this back in January … to halt the EPA’s regulations.  My resolution does not affect the science behind the endangerment finding, but it will prevent the finding from being enforced through economy-wide regulations.

 About the Opposition

Most of the comments by Senators opposing Resolution 26 were “red herrings” … about their confidence that the scientific findings were compelling, about fuel standards and about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of reasoned debate, we got political theatre! Did they read the bill?… did they read the EPA rule? … or did they use Barbara Boxer’s talking points to prepare their comments? Read the rest of this entry »

The Senate is scheduled to vote on S.J.Res 26 – A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.  The Resolution is sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).  If passed this resolution would block the EPA from using the Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.  Check C-Span schedule for Thursday, the senate will be debating this for 10 hours according the The New York Times.  Click here for an article posted at Townhall.com on June 6, 2010

For excellent information about climate change issues, we suggest you view coverage of the Heartland Institute’s 4th Annual International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-4) – a worldwide gathering of global warming “realists” – held in Chicago, IL, on May 16-18. PJTV will offer viewers videos and analysis from each keynote speaker as well as a number of the conference events.
More than 700 people — including a good many scientists, along with economists, policy analysts, and legislators — gathered together to  discuss the once-settled but increasingly controversial proposition of an anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) crisis. There was general agreement to explore real-world facts and test the assertions of alarmists. The presenters and audience members continually asked whether the data says what the modelers say it does.
Videos of the presentations at the conference can be found at Heartland Institute Web site…get informed.