EPA preparing to unleash a deluge of new regulations

[rangerrebew]

EPA preparing to unleash a deluge of new regulations

Posted By Michael Bastasch On 2:13 PM 11/27/2013 In | No Comments


Happy holidays from the Obama administration. Federal agencies are currently working on rolling out hundreds of environmental regulations, including major regulations that would limit emissions from power plants and expand the agency’s authority to bodies of water on private property.

On Tuesday, the White House released its regulatory agenda for the fall of 2013. It lists hundreds of pending energy and environmental regulations being crafting by executive branch agencies, including 134 regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency alone.

The EPA is currently crafting 134 major and minor regulations, according to the White House’s regulatory agenda. Seventy-six of the EPA’s pending regulations originate from the agency’s air and radiation office, including carbon-dioxide-emission limits on power plants.

Carbon-dioxide limits are a key part of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. The EPA is set to set emissions limits that would effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants unless they use carbon capture and sequestration technology. Next year, the agency will move to limit emissions from existing power plants — which could put more older coal plants out of commission.

“The proposed standards, if finalized, will establish achievable limits of carbon pollution per megawatt hour for all future units, moving the nation towards a cleaner and more efficient energy future,” the agency said in its agenda. “In 2014, EPA intends to propose standards of performance for greenhouse gas emissions from existing and modified power plant sources.”

Hundreds of coal plants that have been closed or slated for early retirement due to Environmental Protection Agency regulations, according to coal industry estimates.

“Already, EPA regulations have contributed to the closure of more than 300 coal units in 33 states,” said Laura Sheehan, spokeswoman for the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

However, the agency isn’t just working on limiting emissions from coal plants. The EPA is also working on a rule that would expand the definition of “waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act to include water on private property.

Republicans have hammered the EPA’s draft water rule as the largest expansion of agency power in history.

“The EPA’s draft water rule is a massive power grab of private property across the U.S. This could be the largest expansion of EPA regulatory authority ever,” Texas Republican Rep. Lamar Smith. “If the draft rule is approved, it would allow the EPA to regulate virtually every body of water in the United States, including private and public lakes, ponds and streams.”

The EPA’s rule is heavily supported by environmentalists who argue that it’s necessary to protecting water quality. Smaller water sources, they argue, eventually affect larger water sources that people use for recreation or their livelihood.

“It’s taking the way the Clean Water Act works back, so that it works the way water works in the real world,” Bob Wendelgass, president and CEO of Clean Water Action, told Fox News.

The EPA says the rule is needed to clear up uncertainty left in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the agency’s regulatory authority over bodies of water.

“The [Clean Water Act] does not distinguish among programs as to what constitutes ‘waters of the United States,’” the agency said. “As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all [Clean Water Act] programs.”

Follow Michael on Twitter and Facebook

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2013/11/27/epa-preparing-to-unleash-a-deluge-of-new-regulations/

[mountaineer]

Why have I resurrected a three-year-old thread? Because Obammy has done it again.

Interior Dept. Finalizes Coal Rule That McConnell Says He’ll Try to Block
Jack Fitzpatrick   |    December 19, 2016 
 

The Department of the Interior on Monday issued final coal-mining regulations aimed at protecting streams from pollution.

The finalized rule requires coal-mining companies to monitor the water quality of streams near mining operations before, during and after mines are operational. It also updates requirements for firms to avoid polluting nearby streams, based on technological advances that have occurred since the federal requirements were last updated, in 2008.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement Monday that he will introduce a resolution of disapproval in January under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to block executive agency rules within 60 days of their publication in the Federal Register. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) also said in a statement Monday that the rule would have “crushing” consequences for the coal industry, and he promised to provide “relief” for coal once President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

Environmentalists called the requirements a commonsense safeguard, while the National Mining Association said the rule is unnecessary and duplicative.

The Interior Department’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement estimated the rule will cost the industry $81 million a year on average between 2020 and 2040 and projects that coal prices will rise 1.3 percent from Central Appalachia and the Illinois Basin, and 0.2 percent from the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. The agency also projects that the rule will lead to an average annual employment decrease of 124 full-time coal-production jobs between 2020 and 2040, while the implementation of the rule will require an annual employment increase of 280 full-time jobs, leading to a net gain of 156 full-time jobs.

The stream-protection rule is scheduled to be published on Dec. 20. President Barack Obama has vetoed recent attempts to block his regulations, including a CRA resolution to overturn the Clean Power Plan in December.  ...

Rest of story at Morning Consult.

Sen. Shelley M. Capito, representing the coal-producing state of W.Va., responds via Facebook:

The Obama Administration has decided to pursue this last-ditch effort to further harm West Virginia coal jobs with the release of its final Stream Protection Rule this morning. This is yet another devastating regulation that would cause significant harm to both surface and underground coal mines. Fortunately, the decision by voters last month makes today’s announcement by the Office of Surface Mining an exercise in futility. Working with President-elect Trump and our Republican congressional majority, I am confident that we will be able to use the Congressional Review Act to stop this rule from taking effect.

:nometalk:

[Smokin Joe]

I'm not completely sure where they ended up on the surface water (private ponds) But I can see some EPA ecowhacko banning cattle drinking from stock ponds because they might get the water muddy...

I wish these people would save their own back yards and leave ours alone.

[mountaineer]

   
President Obama takes one final shot at coal
December 20, 2016 at 12:27AM
Hoppy Kercheval
W.Va. Metro News - excerpted

The Obama administration on its way out the door is delivering one last blow to the coal industry–the Office of Surface Mining and Reclamation Enforcement’s (OSM) final version of the Stream Protection Rule.

The rule piles on controversial new regulations to the mining industry, which is already laboring under the heavy hand of the EPA and market forces.

It will take awhile to pore over the 1,648 pages, but if the final rule resembles earlier versions then the coal industry should brace for the worst.

The National Mining Association released a study last year on the proposed rule predicting the amount of recoverable reserves in Appalachia would decrease between 51 percent and 88 percent in underground mines and 38 percent to 67 percent at surface mines by the time all the new regulations are met.

The study also predicted a direct loss of mining jobs nationwide of between 40,038 and 77,520. That would just about finish off the coal industry, achieving the intended goal of this administration, the EPA and the environmental groups that have held the upper hand for the last eight years.  ...

The new rule is scheduled to be entered into the federal register today, making it effective in 30 days, January 19th, exactly one day before Obama leaves office.  But the change of administrations will give opponents an avenue to stop the rule.

Donald Trump has promised to roll back many of Obama’s regulations and put miners back to work.  If congress passes a resolution of disapproval of the regulation and Trump signs the resolution, then the new Stream Protection Rule will be voided.

That’s what should happen, but in the meantime the outgoing president is hurling one more Hail Mary government overreach for one last score against the coal industry.

[Just_Victor]

I missed the bit where science justified the classification of CO2 as a pollutant.  It is a critical component of our atmosphere.  Real "pollutants" can be removed entirely (assuming it's possible) to the benefit of all.  Removing CO2 would in fact end life as we know it.

[uglybiker]

I wish these people would save their own back yards and leave ours alone.

They consider everybody's back yard as their back yard.
And they're just waiting patiently for the day they can tell you to get the hell off their lawn.

[Suppressed]

I missed the bit where science justified the classification of CO2 as a pollutant.  It is a critical component of our atmosphere.  Real "pollutants" can be removed entirely (assuming it's possible) to the benefit of all.  Removing CO2 would in fact end life as we know it.

You're right to focus on the amount and specifics.

For example, oxygen is needed for life, but if we had an atmosphere a few percent richer, we'd have uncontrolled fires and health issues.  How about ozone, O₃?  Highly corrosive, yet protects us from UV when in the right place.

So CO₂ has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant.  And that's how the science was presented when the regulations were put through. 

[rodamala]

They consider everybody's back yard as their back yard.
And they're just waiting patiently for the day they can tell you to get the hell off their lawn.

My back yard is where my rifle range is.  Target practice has just been raised to a new level of FUN!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You're right to focus on the amount and specifics.

For example, oxygen is needed for life, but if we had an atmosphere a few percent richer, we'd have uncontrolled fires and health issues.  How about ozone, O₃?  Highly corrosive, yet protects us from UV when in the right place.

So CO₂ has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant.  And that's how the science was presented when the regulations were put through.

The science I have read does little to recognize the fact that the earth is seeking equilibrium in many different ways.  It has the abilities to take care of the majority of the changes it sees in chemicals and react accordingly.

I have seen few studies that take this into account.

God created a wondrous planet for us to dwell upon.

[mountaineer]

God created a wondrous planet for us to dwell upon.

Amen. And somehow I doubt that a few SUVs are going to change anything.

[driftdiver]

You're right to focus on the amount and specifics.

For example, oxygen is needed for life, but if we had an atmosphere a few percent richer, we'd have uncontrolled fires and health issues.  How about ozone, O₃?  Highly corrosive, yet protects us from UV when in the right place.

So CO₂ has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant.  And that's how the science was presented when the regulations were put through.

@Suppressed
The EPAs leftist agenda is obvious and far reaching.   Its far more about pushing their agenda of social control then any specific part of our environment.   If it were about the environment they'd have their superfunds cleaned up and wouldn't be creating new ones by releasing millions of gallons of water polluted with heavy metals.

[Fishrrman]

Suppressed wrote:
"So CO2 has benefits, yet can still be a pollutant."

Carbon dioxide is not now, nor has it ever been a "pollutant".

It's as natural to the atmosphere and environment as is nitrogen or oxygen.

It's literally a building block of life itself.

Anything else is a leftist lie, plain and simple.

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed
The EPAs leftist agenda is obvious and far reaching.   Its far more about pushing their agenda of social control then any specific part of our environment.   If it were about the environment they'd have their superfunds cleaned up and wouldn't be creating new ones by releasing millions of gallons of water polluted with heavy metals.

@driftdiver

The cost of cleanup of the Superfund sites industry has dumped onto the taxpayer far exceeds what funds are available each year.  So, no...they wouldn't.

But could we not say the same for industry? 
After all, the release of which you speak was caused because a private company refused to clean up the mess they were causing.  If they'd been responsible and dealt with the problem before the water pressure built up, there would have been no trouble.  But they dumped it onto you and me.

Could EPA's priorities be set better?  ABSOLUTELY!    But I deal with EPA personnel on a daily basis, and though I have my problems with them, they are conscientious, hard-working, bright people.

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

The cost of cleanup of the Superfund sites industry has dumped onto the taxpayer far exceeds what funds are available each year.  So, no...they wouldn't.

But could we not say the same for industry? 
After all, the release of which you speak was caused because a private company refused to clean up the mess they were causing.  If they'd been responsible and dealt with the problem before the water pressure built up, there would have been no trouble.  But they dumped it onto you and me.

Could EPA's priorities be set better?  ABSOLUTELY!    But I deal with EPA personnel on a daily basis, and though I have my problems with them, they are conscientious, hard-working, bright people.

@Suppressed
If they really cared about the environment they would focus on the massively polluted sites.  They don't.  They let them linger for decades in some cases.

The release of water at the mine site was directly caused by the EPA and its contractor who was following EPA directions.   They were warned by their consultant that it would happen if they did what they did.  They did it anyway. 

The EPA is full of radical activists who seek to use the power of the government and a gun to further their private agenda of social control.   They seek to control the people of this country and manipulate regulations & legal proceedings to further that cause.   They ignore the law and Congressional oversight.    I sincerely hope and pray 95% of them are tossed out on the street and their budget for their activism is throttled.

[INVAR]

If everyone would simply realize and accept the fact that the Federal Beast has made itself wholly illegitimate, things like this crap from the EPA simply need to be ignored en masse.

All the Beast has is guns they will put to our heads to force compliance with tyranny.

And that ought to tell you what time it is.

[Suppressed]

The science I have read does little to recognize the fact that the earth is seeking equilibrium in many different ways.  It has the abilities to take care of the majority of the changes it sees in chemicals and react accordingly.

I have seen few studies that take this into account.

God created a wondrous planet for us to dwell upon.

Yes, there are both positive and negative feedbacks.  While the negative feedbacks tend to maintain homeostasis (keeping it from changing), positive feedbacks exacerbate the problem (for example, as permafrost melts, it releases more methane, which causes further melting).

But in general, as there's an input to one side of the equation, the "fulcrum" shifts.  So when carbon was taken out of the atmosphere during the Carboniferous Period, the climate cooled.  As we put it back into the atmosphere by burning the coal, for example, we would expect it to shift back to that equilibrium.

[Suppressed]

@Suppressed
If they really cared about the environment they would focus on the massively polluted sites.  They don't.  They let them linger for decades in some cases.

@driftdiver

Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup.  It goes to legal costs.  Yes, 85-90%!

There's not NEARLY enough to clean up all the sites fast.  Taxpayers would rightly be screaming their heads off if the EPA paid expedited costs to do rapid cleanups at places where it was even scientifically feasible!  Most places, it's not scientifically feasible.

And sites are listed on a National Priorities List (NPL).  And many are cleaned up.
 
Also, at many locations, the idea is to get the responsible parties to pay, rather than the taxpayer picking up the huge costs.  There's only so fast you can push before the company decides to go bankrupt and dump costs onto the taxpayer.  Again, is that what we want?

The release of water at the mine site was directly caused by the EPA and its contractor who was following EPA directions.   They were warned by their consultant that it would happen if they did what they did.  They did it anyway.

Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector! 

Funny, but the usual course of action for EPA would be to study the problem more before taking action, but pressure has been put on EPA to "speed things up" (look in the mirror), so they took action without the full study.  (Plus, the situation was building up to a natural blowout, so an Interim Measure had to be taken.)

What they did was wrong.  They should have listened to their contractor.  EPA is quite often arrogant, and this time it cost them (and us).

The EPA is full of radical activists who seek to use the power of the government and a gun to further their private agenda of social control.

   

Yes, there are many like that in the EPA, along with the sane.

I sincerely hope and pray 95% of them are tossed out on the street and their budget for their activism is throttled.

I want the bad ones gone.  I want the good ones staying.  I think that the number isn't 95%, except in upper echelon.  In fact, even some of the "activist" types do good science and are responsible.  You might not realize this, but EPA has already made big cuts to many of their personnel.  Trouble is, they cut from core areas, and boosted others.

The budget should be better focused.  Core-mission funding should be restored, and the activist stuff should be curtailed.

[Just_Victor]

Yes, there are both positive and negative feedbacks.  While the negative feedbacks tend to maintain homeostasis (keeping it from changing), positive feedbacks exacerbate the problem (for example, as permafrost melts, it releases more methane, which causes further melting).

But in general, as there's an input to one side of the equation, the "fulcrum" shifts.  So when carbon was taken out of the atmosphere during the Carboniferous Period, the climate cooled.  As we put it back into the atmosphere by burning the coal, for example, we would expect it to shift back to that equilibrium.

Part of every Mechanical Engineers' education is feedback loop system analysis (2 semesters of Advanced Dynamic Systems).  It's been some time since I solved the differential equations, but I remember how to do the analysis.  The thing is, I keep hearing about the earth's climate as having positive feedbacks.  Positive feed backs are naturally unstable.  Any perturbation will cause the system to oscillate out of control.  Given that the earth and it's resident life have been here for several billion years with countless external forcing influences, I doubt that there are any positive feedbacks with any degree of influence on the system.  Otherwise , the climate would have long ago oscillated out of control and wiped us all out.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@driftdiver
But I deal with EPA personnel on a daily basis, and though I have my problems with them, they are conscientious, hard-working, bright people.

This must be one of those best and brightest - the head of the EPA which resigns to protest against building the Keystone Pipeline.

Oh, and BTW, she has served on the corrupt Clinton Foundation since

http://nypost.com/2013/01/02/exit-of-epa-boss-a-protest/

[driftdiver]

@driftdiver

Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup.  It goes to legal costs.  Yes, 85-90%!

There's not NEARLY enough to clean up all the sites fast.  Taxpayers would rightly be screaming their heads off if the EPA paid expedited costs to do rapid cleanups at places where it was even scientifically feasible!  Most places, it's not scientifically feasible.

And sites are listed on a National Priorities List (NPL).  And many are cleaned up.
 
Also, at many locations, the idea is to get the responsible parties to pay, rather than the taxpayer picking up the huge costs.  There's only so fast you can push before the company decides to go bankrupt and dump costs onto the taxpayer.  Again, is that what we want?

Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector! 

Funny, but the usual course of action for EPA would be to study the problem more before taking action, but pressure has been put on EPA to "speed things up" (look in the mirror), so they took action without the full study.  (Plus, the situation was building up to a natural blowout, so an Interim Measure had to be taken.)

What they did was wrong.  They should have listened to their contractor.  EPA is quite often arrogant, and this time it cost them (and us).
   

Yes, there are many like that in the EPA, along with the sane.

I want the bad ones gone.  I want the good ones staying.  I think that the number isn't 95%, except in upper echelon.  In fact, even some of the "activist" types do good science and are responsible.  You might not realize this, but EPA has already made big cuts to many of their personnel.  Trouble is, they cut from core areas, and boosted others.

The budget should be better focused.  Core-mission funding should be restored, and the activist stuff should be curtailed.

@Suppressed

Its called abuse and in many cases unconstitutional.   This is why the power of the govt must be limited.    If a person or company had done what the IRS did with that mine they would be jailed/sued into oblivion.   The EPA just says, oops my bad, and then proceed to lie about what happened.   

If they cared about the superfund sites they would find a solution and stop spending time and money trying to regulate puddles in our back yards.   

[driftdiver]

This must be one of those best and brightest - the head of the EPA which resigns to protest against building the Keystone Pipeline.

Oh, and BTW, she has served on the corrupt Clinton Foundation since

http://nypost.com/2013/01/02/exit-of-epa-boss-a-protest/

@IsailedawayfromFR

I've seen it first hand many times.  The relationships between the govt and well connected organizations are incredibly incestuous.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@driftdiver

Again, nearly or over 90% of the money spent in Superfund isn't available for cleanup.  It goes to legal costs.  Yes, 85-90%!

You just brought up another issue that is pertinent - taxpayers paying for lawyers, not environmental cleanup.

Because the private sector had left the mess and hadn't cleaned it up! EPA wouldn't have been there if there wasn't already environmental damage left by the private sector! 

If the EPA would stop spending time and money on frivolous adventures such as going after CO2 polluters or issuing all these new regulations, perhaps these cleanups could be addressed much better.  Of course a lot of them of necessity must be done by using public monies if pollution was done prior to the enactment of any laws to the contrary.

The federal government, particularly the DOD, is the absolute worst polluter in the history of this country.  And how much of the EPA monies are dedicated to that?

Oh, and how about the EPA's role in cleaning up this mess which they helped fund.
http://toryaardvark.com/the-united-states-is-littered-with-more-than-14000-abandoned-wind-turbines/

[Hondo69]

Some government agencies are too broken to fix.

[INVAR]

The EPA is a cancer and beyond fixing.

It needs to be removed or the patient will die.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@Suppressed

If they cared about the superfund sites they would find a solution and stop spending time and money trying to regulate puddles in our back yards.

I wish I would have taken a pic of a puddle like you described near a well we were drilling in California.

The state environmental authority had it roped off with signs although any idiot could tell it was simply a 20' diameter wet area.

The CA govt charged the company drilling the well an 'environmental fee' so a college grad student could be hired around the clock to monitor the environmental effects of the activity.  Guess that paid to educate the next generation of envirowackos.

Unbelievable, stupid actions, endemic of an out-of-control government.