The EPA’s job is to protect the environment, not to, as one now-erstwhile bureaucrat at the agency recently put it, crucify American businesses. Yet the agency has adopted a pattern of extreme, over-the-top requirements with which it is impossible for well-intentioned businesses to comply. This undermines business confidence and hinders economic recovery.
No one has done more to try to make one such regulation, the EPA Boiler Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule, or MACT, more reasonable than Sen. Susan Collins, who recently got a bipartisan majority of the Senate to vote for her amendment to fix those rules. A filibuster thwarted her efforts.
Now, she’ll have a chance to vote on a sister rule that applies the same unreasonable standards to utility boilers. The Utility MACT vote, however, will be protected from filibuster and therefore stands a good chance of passage. Collins should again lead.
The Utility MACT rule doesn’t affect Maine as much as the Boiler MACT rule, but it certainly bears consideration. One study estimated that, as a result of this rule, the retail price of electricity in Maine would increase by approximately 5 percent. That’s not insignificant, especially for seniors and others on fixed incomes.
The effect on our national economy must also be considered. In many states electricity prices will spike 20 percent or more as a consequence of the rule, forcing businesses to lay off workers and downsize their operations. That’s likely to stall the already weak economic recovery.
The Utility MACT rule, like the Boiler MACT rule, has an unrealistically short timetable for compliance. Many power plants will require much longer than the rule provides to install the expensive equipment required, and the environmental benefits come mostly from reduced particulate matter, which is already separately regulated. According to EPA’s own estimates of the direct costs and benefits, the rule will impose $9.8 billion (with a “b”) in annual costs for just $6 million (with an “m”) in health benefits. That’s an astonishing 1,600-to-1 ratio of costs to benefits.
The Senate will vote Wednesday on S.J. Res 37, a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would send the Utility MACT rule back to the EPA. It is protected from filibuster by Senate rule, so it will pass if it receives as many votes as the Collins Amendment on Boiler MACT did.
While it’s true that the Congressional Review Act would bar the EPA from promulgating a “substantially similar” rule if S.J. Res 37 passed, the statutory authority under the Clean Air Act is broad enough for the EPA to return with a substantially different rule that more effectively addresses mercury emissions without all of the other costly requirements and logistical problems in the current Utility MACT rule.
Collins has been a leader on Boiler MACT and should, for similar reasons, join the fight to fix the Utility MACT rule. We urge her to support S.J. Res 37 and encourage other Republican moderates like Sens. Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown to do the same.
Phil Kerpen is president of American Commitment and author of “Democracy Denied.”
One study estimated that, as a result of this rule, the retail price of
electricity in Maine would increase by approximately 5 percent.
Could you please name the group who produced this study.
The effect on our national economy must also be considered. In many
states electricity prices will spike 20 percent or more as a consequence
of the rule, forcing businesses to lay off workers and downsize their
operations. That’s likely to stall the already weak economic recovery.
Can you back this up with proof.
I suspect this is industry propaganda. Deregulate for more and more profit at the expense of the environment and the health of people.
Exactly the right question at exactly the right time and exactly in the right order. And exactly the correct trend that this is going to cause. That Susie is pushing it so hard, in the face of massive calls for moderation, tells me that either she’s hoping no one will notice ( Really ? And when are we all going to see pig’s fly ?) or someone on her staff, who is taking money from the oil & gas lobby, has got her ‘snowballed’ on this legislation to the point that they can put something in her hand and have her go off on a robo-call on the floor of the Senate. Either way, Susie, you really need to start reading you material a lot more closely. Either that or it’s gonna come back on ‘The Wheel’ and bite you in your tookas.
Phil Kerpen
Mr. Kerpen served as vice president for policy at Americans for
Prosperity. Mr. Kerpen has also previously worked as an analyst and
researcher for the Free Enterprise Fund, the Club for Growth, and the
Cato Institute.
Mr Kerpin works for the fossil fuel industry. He opposes regulation, even when it is the correct thing to do. He promotes corporate profits over anything.
How dose a DC based lobbyist know that the passage of this bill will cause our electric bills to increase by 5%?
Mr, Kerpin keep your dirty hands off of Maine.
Of interest is that Kerpen doesn’t name what Utility MACT is:
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule for coal burning power plants
But instead compares it to rules regarding wood-fired boilers.
Maine gets about 8% of its electricity from coal fired plants, and only one coal fired electrical plant is located here.
Americans For Prosperity (AFP) is the “free market” group founded by the Koch brothers. Kerpen is also a columnist on Fox News Opinion, and a contributing editor for National Review Online, the far right publication.
So I guess the Koch brothers, Fox News and National Review get to breathe some rarified clean air reserved just for them?
Mr Kerpen–Not all of us think it is common sense to pour mercury vapor into the air we breath, not to mention the thousand other life destroying pollutants. How about spending a little of your cash reserves cleaning up your waste instead of asking us to eat it for you?
I’ll be sure to think of Mr. Kerpen, the utility shill, next time I see one of my grandchildren pull out their inhaler in order to make breathing easier. His use of a cost/benefit ratio in downplaying the effect of his clients’ dirty additions to the air we breathe is simply “breath taking.”
I have been a proponent of something that exists today, that the auto industry has already produced (in small quantities to be sure) and that has been used to drive from Maine to California successfully. It could be used to replace carbon based fuels to generate electricity without pollution, is renewable (everytime it rains) and is available in every State in America. That energy source is Hydrogen for our gas tanks and a byproduct of Hydrogen Extraction is Nitrogen for our cars tires, a byproduct of burning Hydrogen is water vapor clean enough to drink. Yet when was the last time you heard an elected official speak the word that apparently cannot be spoken. Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Hydrogen say it three times like Beetlejuice and we can let the Arabs drink their oil, clean our air and become energy independent. You say you want cleaner air, you want to do something about budget deficits, shoot I would bet you don’t even have Nitrogen in your tires. About the only thing Obama has ever said I agreed with was that if every American just kept their tires properly inflated it would save this Country over 770 million barrels of oil per year. That’s billions of dollars that wouldn’t be going to Suadia Arabia and other Middle Eastern Oil producing Countries that pretend to be our friends while supporting radical terrorists like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood among others. A year ago Hydrogen was selling for $3.26 a gallon while gas was about $0.75 higher, and this was with a very limited production of Hydrogen fuel in just Calif. Imagine every State producing their own energy needs, ships could travel from Maine to Europe or Asia and extract Hydrogen from ocean water filling storage tanks along the way, to export clean renewable energy to other Countries. The planet would eventually clean itself and we would have an almost inexhaustible supply of clean energy for the future. Energy prices would drop to 50’s levels or less, cars would be built around Hydrogen extraction methods that would allow you to pull into your driveway, take out the garden hose and fill your gas tank. But that is the problem isn’t it? Cheap electricity would lead to more businesses starting up, cheap fuel for cars would destory the monopoly of the Oil Companies and their bosses in the Middle East, why they would lose the billions they are making of us each quarter, and that is why they dare not speak the name Hydrogen.
Hydrogen was in a dirigible and it caught fire, but if you read the story and watch the newsreel most people escaped because while it burned completely (the main reason to use it today, no pollution from half burned gasoline) it burned slowly. Imagine had the tanks of that airship been full of gasoline or propane. A Large part of New Jersey would still be circling the earth today. I am confident that if we can put a man atop a millions gallons of explosive rocket fuel and send him all the way to the moon and back we can make Hydrogen as safe or safer than gasoline is in our cars today. We don’t want to plug our cars in like toys and wait six or seven hours for the batteries to recharge do we? We want a clean economical fuel that does not pollute the environment, we want to pull into a filling station, fill up and continue on our way, right? So start speaking the name that cannot be spoken everywhere you go, tell your leaders whoever they are you want some action on energy independence, on cleaning our environment and boosting our economy with new good paying jobs that don’t now exist by switching from a carbon based economy to one based on Hydrogen extraction and use. I would support the first use of Hydrogen production to replace coal fired electrical plants and ramping up production to allow for all cars to be burning Hydrogen in 5 to 10 years. After all we went to the moon in less than 10 years once a real leader called for it.
But you as an individual who claims to want cleaner air can do something today, right after you read this, find the nearest dealership selling Nitrogen and replace the air in your tires with Nitrogen, usually for less than $5 a tire. This will keep you tires properly inflated regardless of changes in outside temperatures, even if you check your tire pressure regularly (come on be honest) changes in temperatures can effect tire pressures. This will save you money also on not needing to replace tires as often, most tires have good tread but won’t pass inspection because they have cupping or uneven wear do to over inflation or underinflation. Since Nitrogen is dry it also save your tires from rotting from the inside out. How many people put air in their tires only when they look like they have a flat, how many of those same people over inflate because they check for proper inflation by kicking them? So push for Hydrogen to replace carbon based fuels for the future, but get Nitrogen for your tires today, otherwise you are just blowing alot of hot air about caring for the environment. The next time I see a “Save the Whales” sticker on some volvo I will look to see if they have the green caps indicating they have Nitrogen, if not they will not do something so simple but has the potential to make a big difference. One less billion going to the Middle East means one less billion to help fund some terrorist group, something we can all live with.
Tire Wharehouse usually has coupons on its website for 30% off Nitrogen fillups and a lifetime of the tires warranty for free replacement Nitrogen if ever needed. In three and a half years I only needed a refill of my right fron tire once and that was after three years went by. Don’t let anyone from the oil industry or tire industry try to tell you Nitrogen is a waste of money, it works, I guarantee it, the aircraft industry for years and they are not known for wasting money on something that doesn’t work. It is safer by keeping your tires cooler at highway speeds thus making a catastrophic blowout less likely. You will be doing something for your Country, yourself and the environment, if you care at all you will at least do this one small and inexpensive thing. I will be looking for those stickers this summer.
BREAKING: Obama Would Veto Pro-Mercury Pollution Resolution |
The White House has threatened to veto a Congressional Review Act repeal of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, if S.J. Res. 37 is presented to President Obama. Today, the Executive Office of the President released a statement
disapproving of Sen. Inhofe’s (R-OK) resolution that would prevent the
EPA from limiting mercury and other air toxins from power plants.
Inhofe’s bill would block the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards that
protect children, seniors, the infirm, and everyone else from air
pollutants from air pollution such as mercury and arsenic that are
emitted from coal-burning power plants. The standards “will prevent as
many as 11,000 avoidable premature deaths and 4,700 heart attacks,
annually. The annual value of these health benefits alone is estimated
to be as much as $90 billion.” The veto threat makes it easier for
moderate Democrats and Republicans to oppose Inhofe’s resolution because
they can argue that S.J. Res 37 will never become law, so its futile
debate and vote on it.
Will Collins and Snow support polluters or protect our environment and health?
The EPA has done more to destroy small businesses and the middle class than any other government program or agency. Every new edict passed on to business makes it harder for small business to survive. Only deep pocketed corporations can assume the burden or fight the regulations foisted upon them.