The U.S. House of Representatives took a major step yesterday towards modernizing the nation’s energy policy with the passage of the North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act (H.R. 8). This legislation, which was the result of a broader energy vision constructed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee entitled “Architecture of Abundance,” has a goal of ensuring America’s ability to take full advantage of its energy potential and leverage it to bring about clean, affordable, and reliable energy while also stimulating job growth and reducing America’s dependence on foreign sources for energy. It does this by addressing the regulatory red tape that has existed for decades in four main areas: modern infrastructure, a 21st Century energy workforce, energy diplomacy, and efficiency and accountability.
The bipartisan passage of H.R. 8 signifies a necessary and overdue step in solidifying America’s top spot on the world’s energy producing stage. One important provision contained in this bill is the lifting of the ban on crude oil exports. This is an issue of great importance to labor and the manufacturing industry due to the opportunity it presents for spurring jobs and economic growth from the added domestic production. However, the removal of the longtime export ban is unpopular with the Administration and could spark a veto threat in the end. H.R. 8 also contains key provisions for improving energy efficiency for new and renovated federal buildings by allowing utilities to provide them fossil-fuel generated electricity, and for speeding up the siting and permitting process for infrastructure projects. All of this plays a major role in job creation.
The Senate is expected to reconcile H.R. 8 with the Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee’s version of energy reform sometime in 2016. Strong support is needed in order to protect those job growth and affordable energy provisions in H.R. 8 that are important to the American people. A collective voice to your Senators as they work to come up with compromise language will help ensure that these provisions remain in the final version of energy reform legislation.
Given the change in the nature and needs of the general energy framework, it is past time for America to unhinge itself from the outdated energy policies of yesterday and move towards a regulatory scheme that will allow America’s domestic energy sources, production, and innovation to thrive. H.R. 8 does just that.
While some regulation is good and obviously necessary for the economic and social health of our country, too much regulation often has a cost associated with it. More likely than not, that cost ends up creating a dangerous debt on society.
Although there are a number of federal agencies that may occasionally publish a new rule or regulation to address some facet affecting our lives, there is one agency in particular that has served as the lone outlier as of late when it comes to breaking this standard of uniformity: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Since 2009, the start of President Obama’s first term in office, the EPA has proposed and promulgated an absurd number of regulations, and at a dizzying pace. States and industry are not even being given the time allotted under previously-issued EPA rules with which to comply before being hit with an onslaught of new crippling regulations, requirements, and attainment levels. The EPA has promulgated close to 30 rules in a six year time span that were major or controversial, with 10 of those rules pertaining to climate change, ambient air quality, and electric generating units.
The number of layoffs, bankruptcy filings of major coal companies, idled mines and coal-fired generation plants, coupled with the litany of congressional legislative proposals, letters to EPA, and state-initiated lawsuits are all clear evidence of the huge economic damage the EPA is single-handedly placing on the industry. This also illustrates the clear dissatisfaction among the growing number of people and families suffering as a result of the EPA’s actions. There is a vocal faction of Congressional officials doing what they can to keep the issue in the forefront – the most recent being the introduction of the Congressional Review Act resolutions earlier this month, which are designed to block the Clean Power Plan rule. Though the outcome of these resolutions is not likely to be successful, the point behind them is in the message to the EPA and President on behalf of the American people.
The challenges to excessive regulation and government overreach are giving a voice to those working class families whose voices are not often heard, and who will be bearing the full brunt of the EPA’s actions. These extreme power moves by the government will have an adverse ripple effect across society that will be felt for generations to come. That is the message to be conveyed. Any potential gain in the fight against the EPA will have to come from litigation. The courts will be the place where these families can only hope to have their voices finally heard in this effort to save the country and society from further damage.
In the past six months, over 900 Alabama coal miners have lost heir jobs as the result of a depressed coal market and the uncertainty created by a litany of new EPA regulations targeting the coal industry. For these hardworking men and women, coal mining is not just a job, it’s a path to financial security and a better quality of life for their family. Coal miners typically earn an annual salary with benefits totaling over $100,000 and this level of income cannot be replaced by similar jobs in other industries. The ripple effect caused by these layoffs will hurt the local economy in the communities these miners call home.
The coal industry has been under attack across the country by the Obama Administration and locally by a coalition of radical environmental groups. In 2013, the Southern Environmental Law Center (SECL), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), Alabama Environmental Council (AEC), and GASP intervened in hearings held by the Alabama Public Service Commission (PSC) in a covert effort to fight against the use of coal for power generation. While these groups claimed their intervention was about utility rates, public records proved they were each being paid big bucks by the San Francisco based Energy Foundation to fight against low-cost traditional energy in an effort to advance more expensive renewable power sources.
In another front in the war on Alabama’s coal industry, Black Warrior Riverkeeper and SELC are litigating a case in the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which if successful, will shutdown most of the state’s coal mines. The environmental groups claim the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers erred when issuing permits required by the Clean Water Act for 41 mining operations. In spite of their arguments being rejected by a federal district judge multiple times, the anti-coal groups refuse to drop their lawsuit. For these radical environmentalists, the prospect of shutting down 41 mining operations in one fell swoop is too great of a victory for them to concede.
While this small but vocal cadre of environmental activists might consider the woes of Alabama’s coal industry a victory, it is anything but that for the affected miners and their families. It’s hard to imagine the angst these recently laid-off miners are feeling as a result of losing their livelihood. The “War on Coal” is not a political or philosophical debate, it’s a man-made catastrophe. At it’s core is a lack of empathy for these hardworking men and women trying to provide a better life for their families.
With Christmas just around the corner, a Go Fund Me account has been established by Stephanie Tingle, to help the families of miners who’ve lost their job purchase Christmas presents for their children. Tingle, whose husband recently lost his mining job, exemplifies the kindness and compassion that exists in tight-knit coal mining communities by focusing her attention on the well-being of others impacted by the layoffs, rather than her own.
Please consider making a donation to help these families have a good Christmas this year and ask your co-workers, family, and friends to support them as well.
Brent Bailey, a candidate for the Mississippi Public Service Commission, recently urged the Commission to support subsidies for solar energy; but it’s what he didn’t say that should concern Mississippians who oppose President Obama and the United Nations’ radical climate change agenda.
What is Brent Bailey hiding?
The United Nations Foundation is the “primary sponsor” of Bailey’s environmental group called the 25×25 Alliance. Bailey’s group actually goes out of their way to conceal their connection to the UN. For example, the 25×25 website never mentions their connection to the UN, even though 25×25.org is actually owned by the UN Foundation.
What is the agenda of the United Nations Foundation?
The UN Foundation is an NGO that was created in 1998 with a $1 billion dollar donation from Ted Turner. Their mission is to “build support for United Nations causes and to make sure that the United States honors its commitments to the United Nations.”
The UN Foundation supports President Obama’s Climate Agenda and is working with the UN to implement global limits on greenhouse gases as part of the UN’s “Post-2015 Development Agenda.”
What does this mean for Mississippi families?
President Obama’s climate change agenda will kill jobs and cause energy costs to skyrocket. The UN climate agenda could impose even more costly carbon limits on US energy consumers. The UN Foundation would not be the “primary sponsor” of Bailey’s 25×25 Alliance if his group were not supporting their climate agenda.
Earlier this morning, JobKeeper received a stunning email that reveals a secret plan by extremist environmentalists to bankrupt and destroy the Mississippi Power Company, a bankruptcy that will harm consumers, kill jobs and damage the state.
The email, sent by blogger Eddie Curran of Mobile, focused on comments made by Thomas Blanton, a candidate for Mississippi Public Service Commission and outspoken critic of the Kemper project, a new power plant that gasifies lignite coal to generate electricity.
Blanton reveals a long-term plan to manipulate the value of Mississippi Power, shove the company into bankruptcy, then swoop in and buy the weakened company at a much lower cost, all at the expense of Mississippi working families.
Blanton said plans are underway for parties to buy Mississippi Power’s assets, such as at auction or out of bankruptcy court.
Blanton revealed that he has “lined up a $600 million payment-to-arbitrage loan” as part of a secret plan to “take over Mississippi Power.” According to the email, Blanton stated that the Public Service Commission has the authority to revoke Mississippi Power’s “certificate” to operate in the state.
“Alternatives include removing their certification to operate the utility (and to) take the company away from them,” Blanton told Curran, adding that another option would be to turn the company assets into an electric cooperative. Keep in mind that Mississippi Power has operated for nearly a hundred years, has about 1,250 employees, and serves more than 180,000 customers. This is no minor undertaking.
“I don’t need to be blowing a bugle before anything happens,” Blanton explained, telling Curran that the secret plan for parties to take over Mississippi Power is planned for next summer.
Clearly, these extremists care more about their own political agenda than they do about the future of Mississippi, an agenda and plan that will have a devastating impact on Mississippi families, who will be the most hurt if the Mississippi Power Company is destroyed.
Once candidate Blanton realized that blogger Curran planned to write about the secret plan to destroy Mississippi Power, Blanton immediately tried to cover up the disclosure, asking Curran not to report on the conversation.
It is completely fair to have disagreements and lively debate on energy and public policy. Such debate is both expected and needed. But in this case, Blanton and his extremists friends have crossed an important line, working methodically to destroy Mississippi Power for political gain, and perhaps, even personal gain.
Blanton personally filed a lawsuit that resulted in Mississippi Power being forced to refund $350 million to the company’s customers. It is worth noting that both Blanton and Curran disagree with JobKeeper’s position on the Kemper plant.
Blanton’s comments are truly shocking and raise a number of questions about opposition to Kemper by him and others.
Did Thomas Blanton file his lawsuit just to devalue Mississippi Power so it could be bought cheaply?
What is Blanton’s personal stake in the planned takeover of the company?
If he had an interest, is that legal?
Should his actions preclude him from serving on the Public Service Commission?
Who else is involved in this conspiracy to destroy one of Mississippi’s largest companies and employers? Who are the “buyers” working with Blanton?
Where do other PSC candidates stand on this matter, and will they vote to rescind Mississippi Power’s certification to operate?
Aside from Blanton, the most active voice in opposition has been a group called Bigger Pie Forum. Are they connected to the effort to buy out Mississippi Power? Are their questionable ties to the natural gas industry part of the secret plan?
Mississippi voters, and particularly customers of Mississippi Power, are entitled to answers to these questions. Candidate Blanton and his allies need to fully disclose the elements of the plan and every interest involved in the conspiracy to bankrupt Mississippi Power.
The people of the state have the right to know the names of those conspiring to manipulate the value of Mississippi Power, bankrupt the company and then make illegal profits at the expense of Mississippi and its families. Thomas Blanton is one of those people. Who else is working with him?
Hopefully state authorities will give Blanton’s comments the scrutiny they deserve and provide some answers.
The American economy is literally energized by one of the world’s most complex and efficient machines – the nation’s electrical grid and its associated power plants. Since Edison and the 1880’s, this interconnected grid has operated best through close-to-the-customer oversight at the state level. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is looking to federalize our nation’s energy policy through the burdensome “Clean Power Plan”.
The undersigned group of citizens, elected officials and regulators say again to U.S. EPA that their extremely burdensome regulation without due consideration of customers should be cause for concern.
Last summer in response to the draft “Clean Power Plan”, hundreds of leaders with diverse backgrounds across the nation came together to tell U.S. EPA that the “Plan” should:
- Consider customer costs;
- Preserve fuel options;
- Maintain electric grid reliability and;
- Respect states-rights and their unique circumstances.
To the first point, the U.S. Supreme Court recently reprimanded U.S. EPA for not including consumer costs in their evaluation of other regulations. It appears EPA didn’t get the message.
Consumers across the country call for a retooling of the “Plan” that gives credit for the significant emissions reductions America has already accomplished, provides realistic timelines for compliance, thoughtfully considers impacts on consumers, and pays deference to states’ authority to make energy decisions in the ultimate interest of consumers and ratepayers.
To avoid production and planning uncertainty related to our nation’s vital energy infrastructure, EPA should reconsider its “Plan” in light of all the ongoing court proceedings and the legitimate concerns raised by bipartisan policymakers, non-partisan regulators, and the consumers they serve. Jobs, reliability and consumers of energy across the nation depend on this relief.
Alaska Senator Cathy Giessel
Atlanta Metro Chamber
Al Henley, (retired) President of Alabama AFL-CIO
Consumer Energy Alliance
Georgia Public Service Commission, Chairman Chuck Eaton
Georgia Public Service Commissioner Tim Echols
Georgia Rep. Chuck Martin
Georgia Agribusiness Council
Georgia Chamber of Commerce
IBEW Local Union 111
IBEW Local Union 5
Kentucky Chamber of Commerce
North Dakota Rep. Bob Skarphol
Ohio Rep. Mike Dovilla
Mayor Ray Beck, Craig, CO
Operating Engineers Local 66
Partnership for Affordable Clean Energy (PACE)
Pennsylvania Senator Pat Stefano
Pennsylvania Camera Bartolotta
Pennsylvania Rep. Bill Kortz
Pennsylvania Coal Alliance
Utah Rep. Steve Handy
Wyoming Sen. Drew Perkins
The San Francisco based Energy Foundation is once again attempting to hijack Alabama’s energy policy. Two years ago, this liberal West Coast organization funded the “War on Coal” fought at the Alabama Public Service Commission by their environmental extremist partners,the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC), Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), Alabama Environmental Council (AEC), and GASP. After their radical energy agenda was defeated in Alabama in 2013, the Energy Foundation decided to double down and pour a record amount money into their front groups.
Recently, a group that received $440,000 from the Energy Foundation in 2014, the “Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis,” released a misleading report claiming that utility customers are left out of the decision making process at the Alabama Public Service Commission. Their assertion could not be further from the truth. We choose our representatives on the PSC at the ballot box, which makes our commissioners accountable to the citizens they serve. Last year, Alabama voters made their voice heard when they went to the polls and soundly defeated the PSC candidate who supported giving environmental groups more power at the commission.
The report, ironically titled “Left in the Dark,” argues that environmental groups should be able to influence the development of the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which outlines the mix of coal, nuclear, natural gas, and renewables that will be used to generate power over the next two decades. In other states where the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) have the level of access to the IRP process they are seeking here in Alabama, they use it to demand the shuttering of coal-fired power plants and insist they be replaced by costly renewable power sources. If these groups have their way, Alabama families and businesses will be “left in the dark” by a more expensive and less reliable energy future.
The Energy Foundation funds a well-organized national network of environmental groups that are working at the state and local levels to support and advance President Obama’s energy polices. Allowing these radical groups to influence our energy policy would be tantamount to handing the keys to the Alabama PSC over to President Obama himself.
Over the last twelve months, the Energy Foundation has poured a record amount of money into the environmental groups fighting against reliable and affordable energy in Alabama. The breakdown below shows how much each group received in 2014.
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy $990,000
Southern Environmental Law Center $545,000
Alabama Environmental Council $60,000
Alabama Rivers Alliance $65,000
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis $440,000
New ozone regulations recently announced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are on the horizon and, once implemented, will have a devastating impact on the manufacturing industry, energy, and the nation’s economy, especially in the State of Alabama. The EPA is slated to issue final ozone standards by October 1, 2015.
Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the EPA is tasked with setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six different pollutants considered harmful to the nation’s public health, with ozone being one of those pollutants. Different from the protective layer of ozone found in the stratosphere, ground-level ozone (or “bad” ozone) is formed when emissions of nitrogen oxide (NOx) gases and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) react with sunlight to form smog and migrate to ground-level.[i] NOx and VOCs originate from burning fossil fuels, industrial facilities, automobiles, and other related sources.[ii]
The current NAAQS standard for ground-level ozone is 75 parts per billion (ppb), which was set by the EPA in 2008. Today, almost half of the United States population lives in a state or area that has not met the current ozone standard, also known as a “nonattainment” area. Typically, severe financial and economic penalties exist for nonattainment areas under CAA, including loss of highway funding. Instead of allowing these states to catch up to the 2008 standard, the EPA is now targeting power plants and factories in its plan to tighten the standards even further, to a range of 65-70 ppb, making them even more burdensome and unattainable for states. Further, the new and more stringent regulation is slated to be an expensive one, especially for the manufacturing industry.
A NERA Economic Consulting study assessing the new regulation’s potential impact projected an overall annual cost of $26 billion, an annual reduction in U.S. GDP by $270 billion, and a loss of approximately 609,000 jobs annually. The report goes further to point out a number of inaccuracies in the EPA’s regulatory impact analysis meant to support its decision, and it highlights the EPA’s failure to demonstrate that the benefits of additional ozone regulations trump the costs involved.
The regulatory burden will no doubt be a heavy one. In 2011, even President Obama acknowledged the burden this new regulation could potentially have on the manufacturing industry, in addition to the cost of millions of jobs, when he asked the EPA to withdraw this same rule. The National Association of Manufacturers predicts that the new ozone regulation will be “the most expensive regulation” ever issued by the U.S. Government.[iii] As it continues to raise its profile in top-notch manufacturing job recruits, the impact of the new regulations on both manufacturing and the energy industry will hit the state of Alabama especially hard. While Alabama’s energy sites are currently in compliance with federal ozone standards, that status will change once the new ozone standards are implemented. The state’s energy supplies would be affected when production of fossil fuels will have to be reduced in order to ensure compliance with the new standards.
While EPA’s new ozone regulation will dramatically reduce the amount of ozone allowed in the air, it will have a similarly dramatic effect on the economy, with no clear benefits for improving the air quality any more than has already been done over the past several years. With the removal of political accountability due to the EPA’s careful timing of its announcement, and no clear justification of the new standards from a health and scientific standpoint, it is clear that these regulations largely serve as a direct aim towards power plants and the manufacturing industry. This roundabout attack on energy by the EPA could lead the eventual closing of coal-fired power plants. As a result, the eventual increase in electricity prices and economic damage for families and the industrial sector will prove more harmful to everyone than the pollution the EPA is claiming to eradicate.
The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan would raise utility prices and threaten the grid’s reliability.
By Kevin Cramer
Dec. 10, 2014
Pushback against the Obama administration’s complex Clean Power Plan—which would reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 30% in 2030 from 2005 levels—has mostly focused on its staggering cost. NERA Economic Consulting, for instance, estimates the plan will increase the nationwide average price of electricity 12% to 17% over 15 years. But a pair of recent reports present an even more ominous picture. Not only will electricity cost more, Americans might not be able to get it when they most need it.
The North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC), a regulatory authority that monitors the U.S. and Canadian power systems, released a study on Nov. 12 concluding that the long-term reliability of the U.S. grid in some areas is already at risk. Because of rapid shifts to renewable and natural-gas generation, combined with closures of coal-fueled power plants due to existing Environmental Protection Agency regulations, “reserve margins” in the Midwest, New York and Texas have reached dangerously low levels—meaning an increased likelihood of brownouts and blackouts in the coldest weeks of winter and the hottest days of summer.
This analysis of the grid’s long-term reliability left out the potential impact of the EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which would force even more coal-fueled power plants to close. A separate NERC report, released one week earlier on Nov. 5, pointed out that the plan’s compliance deadlines for reducing carbon emissions were not realistic when considering how long it takes to build new gas pipelines and electricity transmission lines necessary for new and existing renewable and natural-gas plants to serve customers previously served by coal plants.
More precisely, NERC pointed out that the EPA’s estimates for continuous 1.5% energy efficiency gains each year are unsubstantiated, specifically stating, “this sustainability is not supported by any peer-reviewed or technical studies of energy efficiency potential.” This creates an incentive to close even more coal-fueled power plants to meet carbon-dioxide reduction requirements not actually attained by energy efficiency, posing even greater risks to the availability of electricity throughout the U.S.
These warnings are worth paying attention to. NERC is not a special-interest group. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan body of experts in the engineering and operation of power grids. They are the architects of the miracle we take for granted every time we flip a switch and electricity instantaneously appears from generating sources hundreds of miles away.
EPA personnel are environmental regulators, not electrical engineers, and have no experience in or knowledge of the construction and operation of power grids. But it is inexcusable that the agency failed to heed the advice of those who do have such expertise. The administration’s Clean Power Plan will remake an enormous sector of the U.S. economy, affecting almost every industry and every consumer. It is irresponsible in the extreme that this plan has been put forth without due consideration of the risk it poses to the reliability of the nation’s electricity supply.
Billions of dollars and decades of time have been invested in building an electricity infrastructure that undeniably works. Yet the EPA would replace it with expensive and uncertain measures to accomplish reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions that won’t even move the needle on climate change globally. The consequences could be catastrophic if the transition results in blackouts and brownouts during extreme weather conditions or other emergencies when electricity is needed most.
Of course, the anti-carbon crowd and the current EPA bureaucrats won’t be held accountable if the Clean Power Plan disrupts the future reliability of the grid. In any case, this disruption won’t be felt for several years, most likely when the Obama administration is history. But whoever is occupying the Oval Office, regardless of political party, will not find it a pleasant place to be when the lights start flickering.
Mr. Cramer, a Republican, is a U.S. congressman from North Dakota. As a public-service commissioner in North Dakota from 2003-12, he regulated the electrical utilities industry.
JobKeeper Alliance, a job-focused nonprofit organization strongly opposed to the EPA’s proposed limits on carbon emissions, launched a new effort spotlighting individuals they call “carbon hypocrites.” A website unveiled this week features a list of The South’s Top Ten Carbon Hypocrites, with names of those on the list to be reveled over the next three weeks.
The project highlights the disparity between a group of elite environmentalists who praise President Obama’s Climate Action Plan while enjoying an energy intensive lifestyle verses the middle-class working families who use far less energy, but will bear the highest costs resulting from the job-killing carbon regulations.
Stephen Smith, Executive Director of the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, earned a top spot on the list of carbon hypocrites for directing $92,000 in payments from the green group he leads to an aviation business he owns for flights on his private plane, travel that was presumably in support of the nonprofit organization’s anti-carbon mission. Another noteworthy name landing a top spot on the list is Dell Brooke, a Southern Environmental Law Center Board Member who supports energy polices that will force average families to use less energy, while her 9,000 sq. ft. home and beach house consume more electricity in just two months than the average household uses in an entire year.
Visit carbonhypocrites.com to learn more about this project and individuals featured on our list of The South’s Top Ten Carbon Hypocrites.
JobKeeper Alliance is a 501(c)(4) alliance formed between the business community and labor. This partnership is cemented by the two group’s mutual interest in protecting and creating quality jobs.