If one was looking for fiery, crowd pleasing, political rhetoric from former Speaker Newt Gingrich as he addressed CPAC today, they were likely disappointed. What Gingrich did do was run through a litany of policy solutions he claimed he has committed to implement immediately upon taking office in January of 2013.

Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.” (more…)

President Obama’s EPA usually has a bad habit of kicking American industry when it’s down by dumping on them with unnecessary regulations, regardless of what business leaders say the effects will be.

Usually. Which is why the latest fiasco over the Agency’s proposed Boiler MACT rule is so noteworthy.

After writing new rules in mid-2011 that would require electricity-generating boilers to meet a shockingly high emissions standard – at a capital cost of $9.5 billion – a wide swath of industries, most notably the paper and wood business, pushed back. EPA was set to impose the rules anyway, risking hundreds of thousands of jobs, sky-high costs, and electrical production capacity.

Yet shockingly, EPA suddenly changed its mind in December, apparently having listened to the industries’ criticisms and deciding to stay any formal enactment of the proposed rules. EPA wanted more time to study the potential effects and revise the regulations.

But of course, the environmentalist left wouldn’t have that. From the PJ Tatler: (more…)

Tuesday’s State of the Union address is noteworthy because it appears to signal a change in the Administration’s approach to US energy development. If so, this is welcome news. Truly embracing an “all of the above” energy strategy that allows for the robust development of our oil and natural gas resources in the immediate term would boost economic development, lessen our dependence on hostile oil regimes, and save American consumers from record-high fuel costs.

However, while these words are encouraging, the Administration’s actions over the last three years tell a different story.

One highlight was the President’s emphasis on natural gas — a game-changer for the US economy. President Obama mentioned the words “manufacturing” and “manufacturers” fifteen times. This is because manufacturers of such commodities as steel, paint, fertilizer and chemicals, who use natural gas as a feedstock, have seen record low prices for the commodity in the United States. The boom in natural gas, created by the combination of two old technologies – horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing — has made the resource abundant and extremely affordable. Low energy prices, driven by an increased supply, benefits all Americans. This resource has been and should continue to be developed safely and without jeopardizing our environment. Unfortunately, the Environmental Protection Agency has spent considerable time and effort over the past few years trying to impose new regulations on natural gas production that could, in effect, render future production uneconomical.

The President also failed to mention the Keystone XL pipeline. His Administration’s decision just last week to reject the Keystone XL pipeline, a $7 billion energy infrastructure project built completely with private funds, could bring over 700,000 barrels of oil from Montana, North Dakota, and our trusted friend Canada and create thousands of union jobs during construction. If his Administration is serious about generating new jobs and economic growth through energy policy, there is no better, or more immediate, way than approving this “shovel ready” project.

While his emphasis on the return of domestic manufacturing rightfully deserves attention, he left out several other key energy issues – some of which could strengthen energy security and put Americans back to work in weeks, not years. (more…)

As the campaign cycle progresses we are going to hear a lot about what one candidate or another is going to do about this or that. We will, to the point of weariness, be inundated with campaign promise after campaign promise, albeit, between gratuitous attacks, both political and personal. This is politicking and the American electorate – for better or for worse – has come to accept a certain amount of it from the people in the political class. But expecting grandiose pledges and believing in the unattainable, well, those are two different things. It is the truly foolish who believe half of what a political candidate says he can deliver, and the blame for that foolishness must fall on the shoulders of the individual voter.

While Presidents sign legislation into law, it is Congress – the House and the Senate; the Legislative Branch – that actually crafts and passes legislation. Therefore, any promise made on the campaign trail by a presidential candidate, be it by the incumbent or the challenger (or the field of candidates vying to be the challenger), is subject to the debate and acquiescence of those in the Legislative Branch; in Congress. It is because of this that any promise made by a presidential candidate must be received by the voting public as more of an intention, rather than a promise. To accept a campaign promise as an impending reality is to set oneself up for almost certain disappointment. And to blame a successful candidate for not living up to those campaign promises requires a level of certainty that the promise was actually ignored, not thwarted.

A good example of campaign promises thwarted comes in the form of the Republican TEA Party supported congressional freshman class who, during the 2010 Mid-Term Elections, promised to “repeal or defund Obamacare” and to “bring fiscal responsibility to Washington.” Each of those elected sincerely believed that they would be able to succeed in doing what they promised. In fact, HR2 of the 112th Congress did, in fact, attempt to repeal Obamacare and many of the TEA Party supported members of the House took it straight on the chin during the debt, deficit and budget debates. But for all of their good intentions and actions, the freshmen Republicans of the 112th Congress learned that unless you have a veto-proof majority in the House, a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a friendly inhabitant in the White House, absolutes in campaign promises do not exist.

(more…)

Now we know why President Obama isn’t spending any time fighting a war on unemployment. He’s too busy fighting his war on coal.

Indeed, while the past few months have seen tiny signs our economy might be growing despite Obama’s anti-job policies, the White House is ramping up its effort to make sure our labor force is expunged of every last coal job it can find. It’d be humorous if it wasn’t so real.

If we start exposing this radical nonsense coming out of the Obama EPA, conservatives can push back on these bad policies. Environmentalists rarely get their way when people actually pay attention to what they want to do.

The latest battle will be coming any day now, as the EPA has said it will issue its Utility NSPS (New Source Performance Standards) sometime in January. Any new utility plants will have to meet a new set of environmental standards – standards that conveniently work out great for natural gas but are prohibitively expensive for coal plants, even new ones, to meet.

(more…)

The same man who oversaw MF Global’s $1.2 billion in missing funds, Bradley I. Abelow, is also currently listed on the Environmental Protection Agency’s website as the current chairman of the EPA’s Financial Advisory Board.

From the Washington Times:

During two days of recent congressional hearings into how as much as $1.2 billion disappeared from MF Global customer accounts, the chief operating officer of the imploding investment firm responded again and again that he did not know.

Yet as the House and Senate interrogated Bradley I. Abelow and other top executives at MF Global Holdings Ltd., lawmakers did not mention Mr. Abelow’s role as a financial adviser for the Environmental Protection Agency, which as of Tuesday listed him as the chairman of its financial advisory board.

Even as he finds himself the public face of a bankruptcy and admitted to lawmakers that he had no idea how client funds disappeared, Congress and the administration have voiced no public concern about Mr. Abelow’s role advising the $8.6 billion government agency on its finances.

Mr. Abelow also served as former New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine’s chief of staff before Mr. Corzine went on to become MF Global’s CEO.  Interestingly, current EPA Administrator Lisa Smith also previously served as then-Gov. Corzine’s chief of staff.  Whether the Corzine connection played any role in Mr. Abelow’s appointment to the chairmanship of the EPA’s Financial Advisory Board is as yet unclear.

(more…)

We never thought that there would be a problem with an Obama administration regulatory agency not regulating enough, but that bizarre day has come. The Federal Electric Reliability Commission (FERC), which is charged with ensuring that the nation’s power grid remain operational, is frozen like a deer in the headlights when it comes to a pair of incoming EPA rules that pose a grave threat to reliability.

To repeat: in the one instance when we actually need federal regulators to intervene, the agency in question is failing to do its job.  Oh, the irony.

From Politico:

A FERC DIVIDED – It’s not only lobbyists and lawmakers who are arguing over whether EPA regulations pose a threat to the U.S. electric grid. The debate has consumed the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the board tasked with ensuring the nation a reliable supply of electricity.

The most outspoken commissioner, Philip Moeller, is pushing for his agency to scrutinize EPA’s proposals more closely, while saying the EPA should consider delaying implementation of some rules for more than a year. But fellow Commissioners Cheryl LaFleur and John Norris argue that delaying the rules might run afoul of the certainty that Moeller is seeking.

(more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Weary after a year of partisan bickering, lawmakers tried Monday to wrap up a sprawling $1 trillion-plus spending bill that chips away at military and environmental spending but denies conservatives many of the policy changes they wanted on social issues, government regulations and health care.

The measure implements this summer’s hard-fought budget pact between President Barack Obama and Republican leaders. That deal essentially freezes agency budgets, on average, at levels for the recently-completed budget year that were approved back in April.

Drafted behind closed doors, the proposed bill would pay for the war in Afghanistan but give the Pentagon just a 1 percent boost in annual spending, while the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget would be cut by 3.5 percent.

(more…)

A bipartisan pair of congressmen are taking on a new battle in the House of Representatives, one that could grab some attention a month out from the Iowa caucuses.

In a “Dear Colleague” letter issued last week, Rep. John Sullivan (R-Okla.) and Rep. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) call on fellow congressmen to help block “EPA’s actions to allow 15% ethanol blended with gasoline (E15) to enter the marketplace.”

In the letter, Sullivan and Peters state that last year, EPA “made a premature decision to permit E15 to be used in model year (MY) 2001 and newer vehicles.” However, according to Sullivan and Peters’ letter, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) “has weighed in and agrees that mid-level ethanol blends are not ready for primetime.”

Concerns about E15, which relies on a greater proportion of ethanol blended with traditional gasoline, run the gamut from worries about market intervention and “picking winners and losers” on the conservative side, to arguments that ethanol is not a “green” energy source on the liberal side.  Both conservative and liberal critics of ethanol believe policies benefiting the ethanol industry constitute a giveaway to big corporate agriculture interests, and that the use of food to generate fuel can promote hunger, especially in corn-dependent Third World nations.

Engine manufacturers in the automotive industry and elsewhere charge that E15 is not sound from an engineering perspective and could cause damage.

(more…)

SAFE. End of story.

Please read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 [Editor: Please link to each]

Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.  Here is a review of all the studies done on Brazilian Blowout.

Oregon OSHA:  Pass

Federal OSHA:  Pass

Health Sciences Associates:  Pass

Dr. James Haw – USC: Pass

FDA:  Conducted no studies

ChemRisk: Too much product used = faulty study

Brazilian Blowout passed every single properly performed study for both state and federal short-term and long-term exposure limits, known as the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL – an 8-hour time-weighted average) and Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL – a 15 minute exposure measurement).

So why the witch hunt on Brazilian Blowout?  The answers are simple:

1) Government Bias

As described in Part 1 [Editor: Please link], Oregon OSHA is guilty of :

• Equating methylene glycol with formaldehyde in contradiction of all accepted scientific nomenclature methods.  Doing so allowed them to…
• Claim extremely high levels of formaldehyde in the product.
• Ideological bias, as at least one scientist who authored the study aligns himself with a hardcore Liberal Senator known as an environmental activist.
• Editorializing what should be a neutral scientific report, thus demonstrating its own bias.
• Deliberately taking samples longer than 15 minutes and applying those results to 15 minute periods.
• Issuing a false and misleading press release that did not report the product actually passed the PEL and STEL tests.

(more…)

Please read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3

Contrary to recent media reports, the Brazilian Blowout hair treatment is safe for use.

Today I’ll present contrasting studies on the product, to show the difference between a properly performed study and a botched one — and how the media reports on each.   A reminder on what we’re looking at: The controversy regarding Brazilian Blowout centers around the amount of formaldehyde allegedly released during a treatment.  A harmless alcohol known as methylene glycol is in every bottle of Brazilian Blowout solution.  During a treatment, methylene glycol can be converted to formaldehyde in tiny amounts when it reacts with water.

OSHA has two important safety limits: The Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL – an 8-hour time-weighted average) and Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL – a 15 minute exposure measurement).  Both are measured in parts per million (ppm).

First, we look at the correctly performed study, and the media’s coverage of it.

Do It Right

Dr. James Haw is the director of Environmental Studies Program and the Ray R. Irani, Chairman of Occidental Petroleum Corp., Professor of Chemistry at the University of Southern California. His work has been published 170 times in peer-reviewed journals.  he’s been lecturing all over the world for 30 years.  He’s been the recipient of 45 grants over the same time period, including one from the E.P.A.  His credentials are impeccable.

He recently visited two Los Angeles salons and conducted fully documented, rigorous scientific testing using the same methodology as OSHA.  The results of the study yielded formaldehyde exposure levels to be almost non-existent.

“The least advantageous way to use my data to estimate the stylist’s 15 min STEL is to imagine that the entire dose of formaldehyde measured over 35 min. was actually delivered in a single15-minute exposure.  This worst-case interpretation results in a value of 0.054 ppm, well below the OSHA limit of 2 ppm.  …The worst possible 8 hour time-weighted average exposure from these data…leads to an 8-hr. time-weighted exposure value of 0.026 ppm , well below the OSHA PEL of 0.75 ppm”.

For the second salon, the STEL was measured at 0.160ppm, well below OSHA’s limit of 2 ppm.  The PEL was measured at 0.052 ppm, well below the OSHA limit of 0.75ppm.  The entire study has been posted on the company’s website.

Here’s the media coverage of Dr. Haw’s study:

(more…)

Billionaire George Soros gave advice and direction on how President Obama should allocate so-called “stimulus” money in a series of regular private meetings and consultations with White House senior advisers even as Soros was making investments in areas affected by the stimulus program.

It’s just one more revelation featured in the blockbuster new book that continues to rock Washington, Throw Them All Out, authored by Breitbart News editor Peter Schweizer.

Mr. Soros met with Mr. Obama’s top economist on February 25, 2009 and twice more with senior officials in the Old Executive Office Building on March 24^th and 25^th as the stimulus plan was being crafted.  Later, Mr. Soros also participated in discussions on financial reform.

Then, in the first quarter of 2009, Mr. Soros went on a stock buying spree in companies that ultimately benefited from the federal stimulus.

• Soros doubled his holdings in medical manufacturer Hologic, a company that benefited from stimulus spending on medical systems
• Soros tripled his holdings in fiber channel and software maker Emulus, a company that wound up scoring a large amount of federal funds going to infrastructure spending
• Soros bought 210,000 shares in Cisco Systems, which came up big in the stimulus lottery
• Soros also bought Extreme Networks, which, months later, said it was expanding broadband to rural America “as part of President Obama’s broadband strategy”
• Soros bought 1.5 million shares in American Electric Power, a company Mr. Obama gave $1 billion to in June 2009
• Soros bought shares in utility company Ameren, which bagged a $540 million Department of Energy loan
• Soros bought 250,000 shares of Public Service Enterprise Group, 500,000 shares of NRG Energy, and almost a million shares of Entergy—all companies that  came up winners in the Department of Energy taxpayer giveaway that produced the Solyndra debacle
• Soros bought into BioFuel Energy, a company that benefitted when the EPA announced a regulation on ethanol
• Soros bought Powerspan in April 2009.  Just weeks later, the clean-energy company landed $100 million from the Department of Energy
• In the second quarter of 2009, Soros bought education technology giant Blackboard, which became a big recipient of education stimulus money
• Soros also bought Burlington Northern Santa Fe and CSX, both beneficiaries of Mr. Obama’s plans for revitalizing the railroads
• Soros bought Cognizant Technology Solutions, which scored stimulus funds in education and health care technology
• Soros also bought 300,000 shares of Constellation Energy Group and 4.6 million shares of Covanta, both of which landed taxpayers’ money through the stimulus, the former of which bagged $200 million

(more…)

“Scientific misconduct” within key federal agencies has given rise to counterproductive regulatory policies that further burden an already beleaguered economy and erode the public trust, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) warns in a letter addressed to the White House.

At issue, is a report from the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI)’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) that describes how the agency manipulated and altered a 30-day report from the National Academy of Engineers. Sen. Vitter and several House colleagues, including Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), called for the OIG investigation in response to allegations that officials with Interior had deliberately misrepresented scientific opinion on the merits of the deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico.

“We’ve seen facts manipulated and science ignored across the administration while they’ve developed policies with huge negative effects on the economy,” Sen. Vitter said. “We want the public to be aware of the administration’s misconduct, but we also want agencies to be transparent and explain their methods.”

The letter from Vitter co-authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.). is addressed to John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, is co-authored by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Rep. Darrel Issa (R-Calif.).

“The IG investigation showed that not only had Interior violated the Information Quality Act (IQA), but there was direct involvement by the White House, specifically Carol Browner, to manipulate the summary documentation in violation of peer-review protocol,” the letter says. “…The investigation revealed blatant political influence, on what should have been an independent scientific assessment, to inaccurately represent the views of a particular team of scientists.”

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Governor Jon Huntsman to discuss entitlement reform, China, the EPA and more.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Huntsman, the Moderate, Endorses Ryan Medicare Plan
Comparing the Entitlement Reform Plans of the GOP Presidential Candidates
Huntsman slams Romney for pandering to voters on economy
Jon Huntsman’s Bold Plan for Health Care Reform
Huntsman, Schwarzenegger ink global warming pact
Western Regional Climate Action initiative details
Jon Huntsman’s campaign site

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Jon on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

This email from TeamPerry hit our inbox this morning:

We’ve all had human moments. President Obama is still trying to find all 57 states. Ronald Reagan got lost somewhere on the Pacific Highway in an answer to a debate question. Gerald Ford ate a tamale without removing the husk. And tonight Rick Perry forgot the third agency he wants to eliminate. Just goes to show there are too damn many federal agencies.

The governor said it best afterwards: “I’m glad I had my boots on, because I sure stepped in it tonight.”

While the media froths over this all too human moment, we thought we would take this opportunity to ask your help in doing something much more constructive: write us to let us know what federal agency you would most like to forget.

(more…)

This week, former Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) lead a cadre of small business owners from a number of states to Washington in an attempt to convince Congress that their commitment to over-regulating American entrepreneurs is a surefire way to destroy the American economy.

From The Hill:

Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Dan Danner, the chief executive of the National Federation of Independent Business, signaled Wednesday that taking some of the regulatory load off smaller companies would help in the current battle against high unemployment.

“The message that we’re trying to leave is that if we want to create more jobs and make the economy better, how do we somehow get this disproportionate burden of ever increasing new regulations off the backs of the people who create the jobs?” Danner said at an event launching his group’s Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations campaign.

According to the Small Business Administration, regulations on American small businesses, which comprise 60 percent of all private-sector jobs and account for about two thirds of jobs created each year, deprive the American economy of $1.75 trillion annually. By reducing – or at least compromising – on current regulations and letting go of the nearly 4,200 regulations on the table right now to be passed this session, Congress could stimulate one of the fastest-growing American industries. Unfortunately for Blanche Lincoln and her team of American business owners, Congress will be hard to convince.

(more…)

President Barack Obama last week unveiled his latest attempt to divert attention away from his horrendously failed economic policies and record.  In his ongoing effort to “fundamentally transform America” and his loomingly piteous campaign to get reelected, the newest phraseology is “We Can’t Wait.”

From his weekly radio address on Saturday:

“The truth is, we can no longer wait for Congress to do its job….So where Congress won’t act, I will.”

There is so much disingenuousness contained in just this tiny excerpt.  The truth is, there is nothing at all new about this.  President Obama has been end-running Congress to unilaterally “fundamentally transform America” since (at least) November 2, 2010. That election day was a stinging, historic rebuke of the Leftist, Big Government policies of President Obama and his Democrats.  Not just in D.C. but throughout the nation, at the state and local levels as well.  It was a crashing, crushing wave that Obama himself described it as a “shellacking.”

We the People elected Republicans in huge numbers up and down the ticket to (amongst other things) serve as a blockade to the Socialism being further emplaced by Donkeys. Unfortunately, the will of We the People remains utterly irrelevant to Obama. After the brutal Congressional slog that was the jamming-through of ObamaCare, over the expressed objections of We the People, the President had enough of the legislative (or constitutional) way of doing things, so he began his regulatory fiat power grabs.

Can’t pass the energy sector-assault that is Cap & Trade?  No problem, President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will start imposing large swaths of it as if it has. Can’t pass the workplace-assault that is the Big Union-payoff Card Check?  No problem, President Obama’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)  and Department of Labor will start imposing large swaths of it as if it has.

So for the President this weekend to pretend his democracy denying-dictaorial-ism is something new is mendacious.  He’s been going at it at a pretty good for years and he’s only announcing that he’s now really going to ramp it up. He isn’t tired of “wait(ing) for Congress to do its job.”  He long ago lost any interest in anything having to do with Congress — save their utility as an electioneering punching bag. Congress is in fact doing exactly the job we (in part) elected them to do: Be an impediment to the President’s overarching, overreaching Leftist agenda. And they have been largely successful when Obama isn’t illegally, serially, wantonly going around them.

(more…)

Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) made the following statement to the House Chamber on October 26, 2011:

Mr. Speaker:  The government’s continuing failure to address our nation’s gut-wrenching unemployment stems from a fundamental disagreement over how jobs are created in the first place.  We are now in the third year of policies predicated on the assumption that government spending creates jobs. We have squandered three years and trillions of dollars of the nation’s wealth on such policies, and they have not worked because they cannot work.

Government cannot inject a single dollar into the economy until it has first taken that same dollar OUT of the economy. True, we can SEE the job that is saved or created when the government puts that dollar back into the economy.  What we can’t see as clearly are the jobs that are destroyed or prevented from forming because government has first taken that dollar OUT of the economy.  We see those millions of lost jobs in a chronic unemployment rate and a stagnating economy.

Government can transfer jobs from the productive sector to the government sector by taking money from one and giving it to the other.  That’s at the heart of the President’s plan to spend billions of dollars to hire more teachers and firefighters and police officers.  But these temporary government jobs come at a steep price: every dollar spent sustaining one of these jobs is a dollar taken from the same capital pool that would otherwise have been available to productive businesses to invest in creating permanent jobs.

Government can also transfer jobs from one business to another by taking capital from one and giving it the other. That’s how we got Solyndra.  We put a half-billion dollars at risk to create 1,100 jobs (that’s $450,000 per job).  Now that half-billion dollars are gone and so are the jobs.  And who pays for these losses?  Other businesses and their employees – meaning fewer jobs created.

(more…)

It’s déjà vu all over again. For the second time, the entire Texas Congressional Delegation, with the exception of one member, wrote a letter last week urging the EPA to reevaluate and delay implementation of the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). The new letter was inspired by the fact that while the agency has offered a few corrections to the original error-ridden rule, they’ve done nothing to address the egregious timeline for compliance that continues to threaten jobs and communities here in Texas. EPA’s minor modifications to the rule may be good public relations, but as we say in Texas, it’s all hat and no cattle.

Donna Nelson, Chairman of the Texas Public Utility Commission, expressed her concerns last week that the EPA’s adjustments to CSAPR have failed to move the January 1 date of implementation and the Agency still has not corrected obvious errors and flawed assumptions. Commissioner Nelson noted that “the EPA overstated the amount of Texas generation available in future years by more than 10,000 megawatts by including plants that are already retired and failing to adjust the state’s wind generating fleet to account for wind’s intermittent nature.” (more…)

As the opposition to CSPAR (Cross-state Air Pollution Regulations) spreads across state lines and various groups, there have been over 30 lawsuits filed to challenge the rule. The groups include power companies, cities, states, industry groups, as well as labor organizations. Meanwhile, Luminant continues to push the Administration to carefully consider the inevitable job loss that will result from this rule.

The opposition continues to grow and crosses party lines. In fact, the Austin American-Statesman recently published an op-ed by the Texas Chapter of the AFL-CIO. The piece, entitled, “Cross-State Air Pollution delay would help Texas workers,” emphasized the tough times that workers are facing in Texas and criticized the timeline of CSPAR. Becky Moeller, Texas AFL-CIO President, chastised the EPA for failing to provide an adequate public comment period.

It is important to remember that most parties involved, including Luminant, have made significant efforts to meet Clean Air standards and are willing to work together to ensure that future generations of Texans will have clean air to breathe. In fact, as Ms. Moeller points out, AFL-CIO and Luminant have worked closely together to do just that. This is not an all-out attack on the EPA or environmental standards, but the fact is that the specifics of CSPAR simply do not provide Luminant with the appropriate timeframe to meet the new standards. It’s not just a matter of making changes to equipment – people’s jobs and livelihoods are at stake. Anywhere between 500 and 1000 jobs will be lost. Texans cannot afford this, and the AFL-CIO has spoken out in support of working families who have the most to lose from this unreasonable restriction.

While Luminant continues to push for a stay to the regulation in order to allow the proper time and resources to make the adjustments, last week the Administration asked a federal appeals court to dismiss Luminant’s petition to curb CSPAR. Politico’s Darren Goode recently featured a story that highlighted the ongoing battle between the EPA and Luminant. The Administration’s appeal claims that the EPA “provided detailed and extensive notice and opportunity to comment on the methodology, assumptions and data it used to determine which states would be included in the rule.” The fact is that the updated rule that included Texas was not released until July, thus allowing less than six months for Luminant to comply with CSPAR when the changes required will take years to put in place.

(more…)