Home / EPA
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EPA. Show all posts
Supreme Court unanimously rules against the EPA in Sackett v. EPA

Supreme Court unanimously rules against the EPA in Sackett v. EPA

It is pretty amazing that the Supreme Court got an unanimous decision in any property rights case, though what the court's decision does is quite limited. The decision also has some pretty strong language (see bold below).

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable.
The Court’s decision provides a modest measure of relief. At least, property owners like petitioners will have the right to challenge the EPA’s jurisdictional determination under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune.
Real relief requires Congress to do what it should have done in the first place: provide a reasonably clear rule regarding the reach of the Clean Water Act. . . .
New EPA rules could add 25 cents to the price of gas

New EPA rules could add 25 cents to the price of gas

Obama can take credit for raising the price of gas. From Fox News:

Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.
The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.
Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."
They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.
This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote. . . .
EPA says that its new regulations will create 9,000 permanent jobs?

EPA says that its new regulations will create 9,000 permanent jobs?


How is it possible that these regulations will on net create jobs? According to the clip, the EPA claims 9,000 permanent jobs, but assumes that no jobs will be lost. That should not be surprising since this is the same way that the Obama administration calculated jobs from the Stimulus. But other articles that I read say that the EPA is saying that this is a net increase in jobs. Hereis something written by a GWU professor:

Contrary to the EPA’s claim that the rule will provide particular benefits to children, the premature deaths the EPA says will be averted are modeled to accrue to people with an average age of 80 years, who would live weeks or months longer, if at all, as a result of the regulations. This modeling is also suspect, because the EPA assumes causality where none can be explained, and makes other assumptions that overstate effects.

Also disingenuous is the EPA’s claim that the “rule will provide employment for thousands, by supporting 31,000 short-term construction jobs and 9,000 long-term utility jobs.” First, this estimate quantifies only the jobs necessary to comply with the new rules, and ignores jobs lost, despite its recognition that “the industries that use electricity will face higher electricity prices as the result of the toxics rule, reduce output, and demand less labor.”

Second, a careful reading of the fine print reveals that even the employment effects the EPA claims are not different statistically from zero.

These new regulations will be among the most expensive regulations ever issued. The estimated $11 billion per year in costs will be borne by all Americans who will pay more for electricity and anything that uses it. Further, due to the EPA’s rosy assumptions and failure to consider how the requirements will make the electricity grid more susceptible to power outages, this cost may well be understated. . . .

EPA rules closing plants, reducing productivity, raising prices



The WSJ has a detailed discussion available here.

From Roll Call:

The EPA’s Clean Air Act rules on mercury emissions from cement plants are set to roll out next month. The agency says the industry has had years to prepare for the new rules, and environmentalists say warnings of rampant job loss are wildly exaggerated.
But leading trade groups say the rules could be crippling.
“The timing of these EPA regulations couldn’t be worse,” O’Hare said, estimating 20 percent of cement plants would have to shut down, eliminating thousands of jobs at a time when business is already down from the recession.
Though the cement industry only employs about 15,000 Americans, such concerns have caught the attention of Republican leaders looking to highlight ways that regulations are stifling the economy. . . .


From CNN:
Spencer Weitman is the President of National Cement, which recently suspended construction of a new $350 million cement kiln in Ragland, AL due to regulatory obstacles. . . . .
Consumer Reports says that the GM Volt is a dud

Consumer Reports says that the GM Volt is a dud

Consumer Reports doesn't always get things right (e.g., on the iPhone), but I think that they are dead on regarding the GM Volt.

Consumer Reports offered a harsh initial review of the Chevrolet Volt, questioning whether General Motors Co.'s flagship vehicle makes economic "sense."The extended-range plug-in electric vehicle is on the cover of the April issue — the influential magazine's annual survey of vehicles — but the GM vehicle comes in for criticism.
"When you are looking at purely dollars and cents, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. The Volt isn't particularly efficient as an electric vehicle and it's not particularly good as a gas vehicle either in terms of fuel economy," said David Champion, the senior director of Consumer Reports auto testing center at a meeting with reporters here. "This is going to be a tough sell to the average consumer."
The magazine said in its testing in Connecticut during a harsh winter, its Volt is getting 25 to 27 miles on electric power alone.
GM spokesman Greg Martin noted that it's been an extremely harsh winter — and as a Volt driver he said he's getting 29-33 miles on electric range. But he noted that in more moderate recent weather, the range jumped to 40 miles on electric range or higher.
Champion believes a hybrid, such as the Toyota Prius, may make more sense for some trips.
"If you drive about 70 miles, a Prius will actually get you more miles per gallon than the Volt does," Champion said. . . .


I had these discussions earlier here and here.
Would you pay about $22,000 more for an electric version of the same car?

Would you pay about $22,000 more for an electric version of the same car?

The Chevy Cruze and Volt are the same size and have just a few major differences. The Volt is an electric car with a small internal combustion engine. The Cruze has an internal combustion engine and delivers 28 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway. Even for those concerned about gas mileage, 42 mpg on the highway seems pretty good. The second major difference is that the Volt cost $22,000 more. I don't see how it can pay to buy the Volt (see an earlier discussion here). The third difference is that the Volt has a maximum range of something over 300 miles. It takes about just 4 to 10 hours to recharge the battery. In extended range after the first 50 miles you get about 35 mpg. There is obviously no similar range limit for the Cruze.

Fox News has this title right: "Forget the Volt, Chevy Cruze to Get 42 MPG"

GM has managed to deliver on its promise of segment-leading fuel economy for its new 2011 Chevrolet Cruze Eco model, with the EPA announcing this week that the fuel efficient sedan will return 28 mpg in the city and up to 42 mpg on the highway when equipped with a manual transmission.

The numbers are so good that the Cruze Eco’s highway fuel economy beats non-hybrid segment competitors--including 23 percent greater highway fuel economy than the Honda Civic--as well as the Ford Fiesta subcompact and many hybrid models. In fact, it’s better than Ford Fusion Hybrid, Nissan Altima Hybrid and Toyota Camry Hybrid. . . .


An extensive review of the Volt is available here.
Will the EPA treat milk as a hazardous substance?

Will the EPA treat milk as a hazardous substance?

The story from the Omaha World-Herald is here.

Imagine treating milk the same as the toxic sludge now washing up on Gulf Coast beaches.
It may sound absurd, but some dairy producers are worried that it could happen under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations intended to prevent oil spills from polluting waterways.
“It's another example of an environmental law where it's really meant to target heavy industry but actually has some farm implications,” said Chris Galen, spokesman for the National Milk Producers Federation.
The EPA program in question falls under the Clean Water Act and requires owners of large oil storage tanks to develop plans to prevent and handle any spills.
Milk contains a certain percentage of animal fat, which is considered a non-petroleum oil, and therefore bulk milk storage tanks near waterways could be subject to the regulations.
Farm groups say there's no reason to put milk under the same heading as oil — who's ever seen a milk-covered pelican struggle to fly? After all, milk is more than 80 percent water, said Stacey Fletcher, spokeswoman for the Nebraska State Dairy Association.
“That's very concerning, that we would ever find milk and oil in the same category,” she said. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)