It seems that the Environmental Protection Agency has been giving preferred treatment to environmental groups while denying similar treatment to watchdog groups.

More on the story may be read at the Washington Examiner here and at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) here.

CEI: “Public records produced by EPA in response to a lawsuit filed by CEI under the Freedom of Information Act illustrate a pattern of making it far more difficult for limited-government groups – in particular those who argue for more freedom and less EPA – to access public records.”

Examiner: “For 92 percent of requests from green groups, the EPA cooperated by waiving fees for the information. Those requests came from the Natural Resources Defense Council, EarthJustice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, The Waterkeeper Alliance, Greenpeace, Southern Environmental Law Center and the Center for Biological Diversity. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time.”

CEI: “This demonstrates a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly. The left hand of big government reaches out to its far-left hand at every turn. Argue against more of the same, however, and prepare to be treated as if you have fewer rights.”

See also:

How NEPA crushes productivity

The EPA is destroying America

EPA sued in federal court over illegal human testing

The EPA is targeting the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station (NGS) in regard to its emissions of nitrogen oxides. The EPA is insisting that NGS install “selective catalytic reduction” to control nitrogen oxides, at an added cost of $48 million per year, even though, just two years ago, the plant installed devices to control nitrogen oxides. This EPA action is of particular concern to Southern Arizona because NGS supplies the electricity to run pumps that provide water via the Central Arizona Project Canal (See more here.)

The story below demonstrates the perfidy of the EPA in its war on coal, its possible collusion with environmental groups, and there is even a connection to President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of the Interior. First, let’s look at the composition of haze in the Grand Canyon.

In the chart below, compiled from data produced by the Western Regional Air Partnership (part of the Western Governor’s Association), we see that nitrogen oxide emissions from electrical generating stations represent only about 1 percent of the constituents of haze in the Grand Canyon. Most haze is a combination of soot, dust and sulfates.

In the pie chart above, we see that nitrates constitute about 8% of haze. The bar chart, if it is to proportional scale, indicates that nitrates from power plants (see asterisk) comprise about 13% of total nitrates, therefore nitrate contribution to total haze is about 1% (8% of 13% = 1%). See here for a clearer view of the chart. The EPA is, therefore, imposing a very expensive requirement to target less than one percent of the problem. As I’ve point out in another article, the EPA’s solution will have no effect on Grand Canyon haze (see: “EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue“). It appears that the EPA attack on the Navajo Generating Station is part of the administration’s war on coal. See more on the Navajo Generating Station here and specifics on emissions control equipment here.

There have been many wild fires and controlled burn fires near the Grand Canyon, all of which contribute to the haze. In fact, the National Park Service (NPS) has a Facebook page on the subject on which they show several photos. Ironically, NPS celebrates smoke in the Canyon as “a photographer’s paradise::

“Fire has always played a role in the ecology of the high altitude forests of the Grand Canyon’s rims. The mixed conifer forests of the North Rim are dependent on fire. Natural fires burn low to ground, clearing out the down and dead wood on the forest floor. Fire creates a mosaic of burned and unburned vegetation, these openings and gaps on the landscape provide habitat for forest animals enriching the diversity of life a healthy forest needs. Prescribed fire is one tool park managers use to maintain a healthy forest ecosystem. Prescribed fires can smolder for days or even weeks creating smoke that lifts in high plumes during the day and sinks into the canyon at night. Smoke in the canyon may seem like a bummer, but in fact creates dynamic, beautiful vistas. Grand Canyon, regardless of conditions, is a photographer’s paradise.”

There is another curious connection. An environmental group, the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA), has a hit piece on the Navajo Generating Station. Within that article is a video which shows a hazy Grand Canyon and the article strongly implies that the haze is due to emissions from the station. However, that video was filmed during the past summer when there were fires in the area contributing to the haze. The people featured in the video also belong to Diné Care, a Navajo environmental group that is fighting the generating station although the Navajo people as a whole value the station for jobs and income. Navajo President Ben Shelly, recently said in a public statement and in testimony before Congress, “I still think that the federal government has placed too much of an emphasis on visibility in contrast to the costs of compliance and the potential economic ripple effects. I sincerely hope that any ripple effects of this proposal will not result in immediate drastic impacts to our Navajo workers employed at NGS and the mine. Unfortunately, some federal rulemakings result in economic impacts that are hard to recover from. I hope this will not be the case here.”

I suppose that in the realm of political advocacy, truth is optional.

Another interesting confluence: President Obama has nominated Sally Jewell to be the next Secretary of the Interior. Ms. Jewell has been a long-standing member of the board of the National Parks Conservation Association. It’s a small world.

It seems that the EPA is again colluding with environmental groups and manufacturing an issue to serve a specific purpose.

P.S. The Wall Street Journal has an article on Sally Jewell here.

“The president knows he can rely on Ms. Jewell to do for the federal government exactly what she’s done at an activist level: Lock up land, target industries, kill traditional jobs.”

Update: CAP officials discuss impact of EPA action, see story in Arizona Daily Star here.

See also:

An open letter challenging the EPA on CO2 regulation

Electricity supply endangered by EPA regulations

BREAKING: Court tosses EPA Cross-state air pollution rule

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

The EPA is destroying America

Obama’s undercover EPA regulations

EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

EPA sued in federal court over illegal human testing

 The Environmental Protection Agency, the home of junk science, environmental radicals, and political zealots, is active on many fronts promulgating regulations that will close down American industries, our electricity supply, and our economy. The EPA is not required by law to consider the economic consequences of its regulations. That oversight should be changed.

 Let’s take a look at some of EPA’s recent actions and proposals.

 The war on coal

 New regulations regarding emissions of nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and ozone may greatly increase the cost of electricity, cause some power plants to close, and endanger our ability to produce adequate power. (See: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=874 http://tinyurl.com/bkccgpb )

 In Arizona, EPA is using alleged haze in the Grand Canyon as an excuse to target coal-fired electric plants and is particularly targeting the Navajo Generating station, near Page, AZ. EPA rejected Arizona’s proposal for modifying the plant and instead wants the plant to install “selective catalytic reduction” to control nitrogen oxides, at an added cost of $48 million per year. In spite of the additional cost, the EPA proposal will have no noticeable effect on haze as shown in my post: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1451. This one plant supplies the electricity to run the pumps bringing water from the Colorado River to Tucson along the Central Arizona Project canal. If the plant survives and installs the mandated catalytic devices, the cost will raise our water rates (See Arizona Daily Star).

 The EPA is also harassing other coal-fired plants in Arizona. The State of Arizona is suing the EPA over this issue (see here). Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said of the EPA, “”This is an absurd action that would significantly raise utility rates for most Arizonans without providing any benefit to anyone.”

 In Georgia, the Georgia Power company said it will close 15 fossil-fuel-fired electric units, impacting nearly 500 jobs in the state, due to the high cost of complying with EPA regulations. In Texas, because of the EPA, Chase Power cancelled plans for a $3 billion coal-fired plant near Corpus Christi which would have employed 3,900 workers.

 Biofuels and invasive species

 The EPA protection of the environment apparently doesn’t apply in the realm of biofuels. The Heartland Institute reports that the EPA is proposing the introduction of two invasive grass species Arundo donax (giant reed) and Pennisetum purpureum (elephant grass), as advanced biofuel feedstock under the federal renewable fuel standard. Pennisetum purpureum is an African grass that thrives in warm climates, multiplies rapidly, and crowds out other vegetation. Arundo donax, native to India, is already a feared invasive plant well beyond the subcontinent. California, Colorado, Nevada, and Texas, classify Arundo donax as a noxious weed.

 ”These two species are already harmful invaders in parts of the United States and should not be incentivized for biofuel use,” said Doria Gordon, director of conservation for Nature Conservancy Florida. “Both species can become so dominant that they crowd out native species and alter habitats.” A group of more than 200 scientists have sent a letter to EPA warning them of the danger and unintended consequences of this proposed action.

 Maybe the EPA wants the invasive species because its mandate for use of non-corn, cellulosic (plant waste) ethanol has not been realistic. Use of cellulosic ethanol, made with crop residue, grasses or wood chips, is a provision of the 2007 Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) enacted by Congress. In 2012, EPA mandated that 8.7 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol be blended into gasoline. However, the ethanol industry was able to produce only about 20,000 gallons in 2012. Even though is was impossible to comply with the EPA mandate, the EPA none-the-less fined gasoline producers for compliance failure and will require they use 14 million gallons in 2013.

 Ethanol and your automobile

 There is more trouble with ethanol. Currently, gasoline is blended with 10% ethanol to supposedly curb air pollution. Now the EPA wants to increase that to 15%. However, the American Automobile Association (AAA) warns that use of E15 as the new blend is called, will damage the engines of most vehicles on the road.

 ”The number of vehicles approved to use E15 – only about 12 million out of the more than 240 million light-duty vehicles – is limited, while the use of the fuel blend in non-approved vehicles can compromise a vehicle’s warranty:

 ”Less than 5 percent of cars on the road are approved by automakers to use E15. Approved vehicles include flex-fuel models, 2001 model-year and newer Porsches, 2012 model-year and newer GM vehicles and 2013 model-year Ford vehicles.

 ”Five manufacturers (BMW, Chrysler, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen) say their warranties will not cover fuel-related claims caused by the use of E15.

 ”Seven additional automakers (Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Mercedes-Benz and Volvo) have stated that the use of E15 does not comply with the fuel requirements specified in their owner’s manuals and may void warranty coverage.”

 ”AAA automotive engineering experts believe that sustained use of E15 in both newer and older vehicles could result in significant problems such as accelerated engine wear and failure, fuel-system damage and false ‘check engine’ lights for any vehicle not approved by its manufacturer to use E15.”

 Burning food for fuel

 Ethanol mandates are essentially burning food for fuel. Even the New York Times has noticed some unintended consequences:

 ”Recent laws in the United States and Europe that mandate the increasing use of biofuel in cars have had far-flung ripple effects, economists say, as land once devoted to growing food for humans is now sometimes more profitably used for churning out vehicle fuel.”

 ”With its corn-based diet and proximity to the United States, Central America has long been vulnerable to economic riptides related to the United States’ corn policy. Now that the United States is using 40 percent of its crop to make biofuel, it is not surprising that tortilla prices have doubled in Guatemala, which imports nearly half of its corn.”

 ”In a country where most families must spend about two thirds of their income on food, ‘the average Guatemalan is now hungrier because of biofuel development,’ said Katja Winkler, a researcher at Idear, a Guatemalan nonprofit organization that studies rural issues. Roughly 50 percent of the nation’s children are chronically malnourished, the fourth-highest rate in the world, according to the United Nations.”

Soot and Dust and illegal human testing

 Another EPA campaign is about fine particulate matter in the air, soot and dust, the so-called PM2.5 standard, which the EPA sets at 35 millionths of a gram (micrograms) in a 24-hour period. Most air in the U.S. averages about 10 micrograms.

 According to a story by Steve Milloy in the Washington Times, Outgoing EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson testified about PM2.5 before Congress in September 2011: “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It is directly causal to you dying sooner than you should.” “In scientific documents, the EPA has repeatedly concluded that any exposure to PM2.5 can kill, and it can kill people within hours or days of inhalation.” How does the EPA know? It conducted illegal human testing. (See: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1517 )

 But, Milloy asks, if the particulate matter is so dangerous, where are the bodies? He was referring to recent air pollution in China: “Beijing’s PM2.5 levels peaked at 886 micrograms per cubic meter — an incredible 89 times greater than the U.S. daily average. Based on EPA risk estimates, we should expect the daily death toll in Beijing to have skyrocketed by 89 percent on a same-day and next-day basis.” Yet there have been no reports of a spike in deaths caused by breathing the heavily polluted air. Has the EPA has been exaggerating the danger?

Tucson doctor Jane Orient, in a Wall Street Journal article, “EPA Science Is the ‘New Homeopathy,’ Doctors State,” says:

The “evidence” for the harm is very weak correlations seen in epidemiologic studies done in 1993 and 1995. Findings are contradicted by other studies. The EPA is now apparently trying to prove harm by subjecting human subjects to diesel exhaust in an apparatus some say resembles a gas chamber.

“Either the EPA is lying to Congress about the lethality of PM2.5, or it is engaged in illegal and unethical human experiments, subjecting vulnerable patients to a substance it believes could kill them instantly,” states Jane Orient, M.D., president of Physicians for Civil Defense.

 EPA colluding with radical greens

 On another front, we see that the EPA (and other government agencies) are colluding with radical environmental groups.

 From SPPI:

 U.S. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) is warning of more secret “sue and settle” deals with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and environmental groups. In a letter today, Vitter encourages Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to join the 13 states’ AGs who recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with EPA asking for any and all correspondence between EPA and a list of 80 environmental, labor union and public interest organizations that had been party to litigation since the start of the Obama Administration.

 ”The collusion between federal bureaucrats and far-left environmental organizations entering legal agreements under a shroud of secrecy is the opposite of a transparent government,” Vitter said. “This is a problem across the country, but could quickly become a threat to Louisianans if we see the full weight of the EPA and Fish and Wildlife Service come crashing down on private landowners.”

EPA regulations are costly:

 A recent study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers critically assessed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s cost- benefit analysis with respect to six key regulations: Utility MACT, Boiler MACT, Coal Combustion Residuals, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, Cooling Water Intake Structures, and Ground-Level Ozone. The NAM study details the significant differences between EPA’s cost estimates and those of industry sources, while highlighting problems and inconsistencies with EPA’s methodology. Most importantly for manufacturers, the study estimates the impact of EPA rules on the manufacturing industry, directly and through indirect macroeconomic effects.

A key finding of the report is that “the annual compliance costs for all six regulations range from $36 billion to $111.2 billion (by EPA estimates) and from $63.2 billion to $138.2 billion (by industry estimates).” Notably, the study was picked up in the trade press and recognized by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which reiterated the study’s finding that “major new EPA rules could cost manufacturers hundreds of billions of dollars and eliminate millions of American jobs.” (MasterResource)

 Pretending that carbon dioxide is a pollutant

 Of course, the biggest EPA stick is its “endangerment finding” contending that carbon dioxide emissions pose some danger in spite of there being no physical evidence to support that contention. The EPA violated both the scientific method and the Scientific Advisory Board statute intended to enforce the scientific method when it made its highly influential scientific assessment in the Endangerment Finding. That the endangerment finding is purely political is shown by the fact that the EPA is getting all worked up about carbon dioxide levels of around 400ppm. But submarine crews work efficiently in carbon dioxide levels over10,000ppm. A group of scientists is challenging the EPA’s endangerment finding. See: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1660

 The EPA has long been a rogue, radical agency, and a very expensive one at that. They seem incapable of exercising common-sense and are now merely an unscientific political tool.  Proper environmental protection is important and desirable, but we are not getting it from the EPA. It is time to defund the EPA.

 See also: The EPA’s Lisa Jackson: The Worst Head of the Worst Regulatory Agency, Ever

The mainstream media has been noticeably silent on EPA plans for the country … a slew of new rules and regulations to go into effect after November 7th that Obama has ordered be kept under wraps until after the election. What this Administration doesn’t want American families to know is precisely what they need to know.

 The US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Staff recently released a report on the upcoming EPA rules and regulations that, it said, will “eliminate American jobs, drive up the price of gas at the pump even more, impose construction bans on local communities, and essentially shut down American oil, natural gas, and coal production. They don’t want this economic pain to hit American families just before the election because it would cost President Obama votes.”

 The Senate report, A Look Ahead to EPA Regulations for 2013, looked at 13 of these new regulations, noting that they will hit American families, the poor, and those on fixed incomes especially hard, as Americans struggle more than ever in this economy and have already seen their energy costs skyrocket over the past four years.

 The entire report is a must read, but here are a few examples of what is being planned for us:

 New greenhouse gas regulations will no longer just affect coal plants, but will regulate churches, schools, restaurants, hospitals and farms, putting an enormous burden on Americans. “President Obama himself warned [these] would be worse than global warming cap-and-trade legislation,” said the Senate report. The new regulations will cost more than $300 to $400 billion a year and significantly raise the price of gas at the pump and energy in homes.

 Farms, for example, will be required to comply with costly permit mandates and have to pay a “cow tax” on each animal and an annual fee on greenhouse gases emitted. EPA estimates that over 37,000 farms and ranches will be subject to greenhouse gas permits, at an average cost of $23,000 per permit each year, affecting over 90% of the livestock production in the country. “The EPA will proceed to issue regulations, industry by industry, until virtually every aspect of the American economy is constrained by strict regulatory requirements and high energy prices.”

 New ozone rules will cost $90 billion a year by EPA estimates, while other studies have projected costs upwards of a trillion dollars and destroy 7.4 million jobs, the report found. Large numbers of companies, by EPA’s own projections, will be unable to meet the stringent restrictions and are expected to close.

 Natural gas fracturing regulations will severely impact energy production, resulting in new permits and well workovers costing $1.499 Billion to $1.615 Billion a year. At least “14 Federal agencies are working to regulate hydraulic fracturing at the federal level, so that they can limit and eventually stop the practice altogether,” the report revealed.

 Clean Water Act new guidelines would allow EPA to expand federal control over virtually every body of water in the country, no matter how small, the report described.

 Final stormwater regulations proposed by the EPA would become “the most expensive rule in EPA history,” according to the Senate. It would establish for the first time, standards for post-construction runoff, mandate cities to change existing buildings, stormwater sewers and streets, “and mandate the use of ‘green infrastructure’ techniques (like ‘green roofs,’ rain gardens, permeable pavement) to replace conventional stormwater management practices.”

 New Gas regulations called Tier III, would lower the sulfur content in gasoline to from 30 to 10 parts per million at a cost of up to $10 billion initially and $2.4 billion each year. That would add another 9 cents per gallon in manufacturing costs, cost that will be passed on to consumers at the pump.

 Farm Dust Regulations being proposed are so tightened, they would be below the dust created during normal farming operations and be impossible for rural American farms to meet.

 The report goes on in more detail about the planned regulatory onslaught. It also describes the war on coal, which includes the EPA obstructing 190 coal mining permits, jeopardizing 18,000 jobs, and trying to stop permits that have already been granted. It describes the war on oil and natural gas, such as EPA alleging water contamination from fracturing, even when it was unable to find supportive evidence and quietly withdrew the scares after the damage had been done to companies and had frightened homeowners.

 You can read the entire Senate report here.

 See also:

Electricity supply endangered by EPA regulations

BREAKING: Court tosses EPA Cross-state air pollution rule

EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

EPA, ethanol, and catch 22

EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

How Many Haz-Mat Suits Do You Need to Change a Lightbulb?

Results: “On nine scales of decision-making performance, test subjects showed significant reductions on six of the scales at CO₂ levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and large reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm.”  However, while “most decision-making variables showed a decline with higher concentrations of CO2, …measures of focused activity improved.”  The researchers also note “The strength of the effects at 2,500 ppm CO2 is so large for some metrics as to almost defy credibility, although it is possible that such effects occur without recognition in daily life.”  (See Berkeley press release here and EHP press release here, Full EHP report here. )

There are some possible confounding factors which could effect the test results, but which the researchers did not discuss. Since each group went through three sessions in one day, results may partially depend on the order of concentrations used and the time of day. For instance, the subjects may be more fatigued during the last test of the day or may be drowsy just after lunch. There apparently was no control group. Each group was tested just once so there was no effort to see if group results were repeatable.

The Berkeley researchers note: “While the results need to be replicated in a larger study, they point to possible economic consequences of pursuing energy efficient buildings without regard to occupants.”

U.S. Navy submariners and astronauts would disagree with the results of this study.  There has been abundant research on the physical and mental effects of carbon dioxide in enclosed spaces (see report from The National Academies Press here):

“Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO₂ concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO₂ concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm.”

“A number of studies suggest that CO₂ exposures in the range of 15,000-40,000 ppm do not impair neurobehavioral performance.”

“CO₂ at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen…”

“Exposures at 50,000-67,500 ppm in 19.2% oxygen for 37 h caused decreased hand-arm steadiness but caused no changes in computing, translating, number checking, or discrimination of pitch or loudness…”

Why did Berkeley/SUNY conduct this research?  Perhaps the EHP headline offers a clue: “Is CO₂ an Indoor Pollutant? Direct Effects of Low-to-Moderate CO2 Concentrations on Human Decision-Making Performance.”  This ties in with the EPA’s contention that carbon dioxide is a “pollutant” that must be regulated.  The study was funded by the EPA through several sub-agencies.

See also:

EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

Greenhouse gas regulations could cost trillions

Statistical Significance in Science – how to game the system

Milloy says:

Since at least 2004 and up through the Obama administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been secretly testing highly toxic/lethal air pollutants on unhealthy human study subjects for the sole purpose of finding out what harm would be caused by the exposures. In no case, were the human study subjects fully informed of the dangers posed by the experimentation, nor were they intended to benefit from the experimentation.

The mere approval and conduct of these experiments (in which the EPA treated human beings as guinea pigs for toxicity testing), not to mention the EPA’s failure to obtain informed consent from the study subjects, violates virtually every regulation established since World War II, including federal regulations and EPA’s own rules, concerning the protection of human subjects used in scientific experimentation. EPA may also incur criminal and civil liabilities from this conduct.

What are the EPA experiments?

EPA has conducted/is conducting at least four separate projects in which already-unhealthy study subjects were/are being exposed to high-levels of diesel exhaust and toxic air pollution particles (known as “PM2.5″). “High-levels” means exposures 10-20 times greater than EPA regulatory standards.

XCON Study. Starting in 2004, the EPA exposed adults with metabolic syndrome (including the elderly) to high levels of toxic PM2.5.

OMEGACON Study. Starting in 2007, the EPA exposed older adults to high levels of diesel exhaust (which contains PM2.5 and other “toxic” substances) and then “treated” them with omega-3 fatty acids to see if whatever harm caused by PM2.5 was mitigated. In 2008, the diesel exhaust was replaced by plain PM2.5.

KINGCON Study. Starting in 2008, the EPA exposed older adults with moderate asthma to PM2.5.

CAPTAIN Study. The EPA is now recruiting older adults (including the elderly up to 75 years) to “… find out if a component of ambient air pollution to which we are all exposed, particulate matter (PM), produced by car and coal-fired power plants, increases the risks of changes in the heart and whether genotype will lessen the risks caused by PM.

　

The findings are given in detail at a new website: http://epahumantesting.com/ . The left sidebar of that site takes you on a guided tour.

See: EPA versus Arizona on regional haze issue and EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

Today, Bloomberg news reports, “The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington in a 2-1 ruling today struck down the EPA’s cross-state air pollution rule, saying the agency illegally imposed federal authority over state air pollution programs.”

Plaintiffs in the case claim that the EPA rule was “one of the most costly, burdensome and arbitrary” rules that the EPA has ever imposed. See complete Bloomberg coverage here.

Read the complete decision here.

Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall (R-TX) commented, “The EPA’s arbitrary and rushed Rule threatened hundreds of good-paying jobs in my district, and would have resulted in higher costs and less reliable electricity throughout the country. It was based more on an ‘EPA-knows-best’ approach than objective science, and was flawed by unreasonable timelines, lack of state or industry consultation, black box models, insufficient cost-benefit analysis, unverifiable health claims, and an over-reliance on computer models instead of actual pollution measurements.”

As a result of the previous post, I received an email from William Yeatman, Assistant Director, Center for Energy and Environment, at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Yeatman is an expert on the issue of haze and power plant emissions. (See two of his publications on the matter here and here.)

Mr. Yeatman wrote me:

“Regional Haze is an aesthetic regulation pursuant to the Clean Air Act. Its purpose is to improve visibility at federal National Parks and Wilderness Areas. It is the only aesthetic regulation in the Clean Air Act. This point bears repeating: Unlike every other regulation established by the Clean Air Act, Regional Haze has nothing to do with public health.

Another hallmark of the Regional Haze regulation is State primacy. Whereas EPA is the lead decision-maker when it comes to setting public health standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act, the Congress intended for the States to render determinations on Regional Haze.

After countless hours of deliberation by State officials and significant public participation, Arizona submitted a Regional Haze implementation plan to the EPA in February 2011. Despite the Congress’s intention that States take the lead on Regional Haze decision-making, EPA Region 9 in mid-July disapproved Arizona’s submission, and proposed a federal implementation plan in its stead.”

Specifically, in addition to harassing the Navajo Generating Station near Page, Arizona, the EPA found fault with Arizona’s proposed regulations for control of nitrogen oxides (NOx) for the Apache Generating Station near Cochise, Arizona; for Cholla Power Plant near Joseph City, Arizona, and for the Coronado Generating Station near St. Johns, Arizona.

Yeatman writes:

“For all three power plants, Arizona chose NOx controls known as ‘Low Nitrogen Burners.’ EPA, however, wants to impose NOx controls known as ‘Selective Catalytic Reduction.’ The difference in price is significant—EPA’s plan is almost $48 million per year more expensive than the State’s plan [emphasis added]. Of course, these costs would be passed along to Arizona ratepayers in the form of higher utility bills.”

Yeatman modeled the expected results comparing the Arizona proposal versus the EPA proposal. The effect on regional haze is shown in the graphic below. Can you see any difference?

The extra $48 million per year that the EPA requirements would impose does not seem to provide any additional benefit, only addition pain to Arizona ratepayers.

Mr. Yeatman concludes: “Despite the Congress’s intent that the State’s have primacy on Regional Haze, the EPA already has imposed four Regional Haze federal implementation plans on New Mexico, Oklahoma, North Dakota, and Nebraska. EPA’s preferred plans cost almost $400 million more than the States’ plans. Not one of EPA’s imposed Regional Haze plans resulted in a perceptible improvement in visibility.”

It seems that the EPA is a rogue agency that imposes regulations just because they can. Few of their regulations in this matter have any scientific basis and the EPA seems to ignore economics.

See also:

EPA war on coal threatens Tucson water supply

EPA fuel standards costly and ineffective

EPA, ethanol, and catch 22

EPA may change Dioxane standards in Tucson water

EPA Admits CO2 Regulation Ineffective

Electricity supply endangered by EPA regulations

Clean Coal: Boon or Boondoggle?

]]> http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/08/15/epa-versus-arizona-on-regional-haze-issue/feed/ 2 http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/17/ipcc-admits-its-past-reports-were-junk/ http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/07/17/ipcc-admits-its-past-reports-were-junk/#comments Tue, 17 Jul 2012 14:20:05 +0000 Jonathan DuHamel http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/?p=1405 The alleged scientific basis for all governmental global warming policy is shown to be based on junk science.

In an article at American Thinker, Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, assesses a new report from the InterAcademy Council (IAC) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report suggests many changes in procedures and points out flaws in previous reports.

Mr. Bast’s article in full (reprinted with permission):

On June 27, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a statement saying it had “complete[d] the process of implementation of a set of recommendations issued in August 2010 by the InterAcademy Council (IAC), the group created by the world’s science academies to provide advice to international bodies.”

Hidden behind this seemingly routine update on bureaucratic processes is an astonishing and entirely unreported story. The IPCC is the world’s most prominent source of alarmist predictions and claims about man-made global warming. Its four reports (a fifth report is scheduled for release in various parts in 2013 and 2014) are cited by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. and by national academies of science around the world as “proof” that the global warming of the past five or so decades was both man-made and evidence of a mounting crisis.

If the IPCC’s reports were flawed, as a many global warming “skeptics” have long claimed, then the scientific footing of the man-made global warming movement — the environmental movement’s “mother of all environmental scares” — is undermined. The Obama administration’s war on coal may be unnecessary. Billions of dollars in subsidies to solar and wind may have been wasted. Trillions of dollars of personal income may have been squandered worldwide in campaigns to “fix” a problem that didn’t really exist.

The “recommendations” issued by the IAC were not minor adjustments to a fundamentally sound scientific procedure. Here are some of the findings of the IAC’s 2010 report.

The IAC reported that IPCC lead authors fail to give “due consideration … to properly documented alternative views” (p. 20), fail to “provide detailed written responses to the most significant review issues identified by the Review Editors” (p. 21), and are not “consider[ing] review comments carefully and document[ing] their responses” (p. 22). In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.

The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).

Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”

Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:

Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).

How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?

Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is “not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty” (p. 34), a huge understatement. Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called “level of understanding scale,” which is more mush-mouth for “consensus.”

The IAC authors warn, also on page 34, that “conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.” Yes, but that doesn’t keep the media and environmental activists from citing them over and over again as “proof” that global warming is man-made and a crisis…even if that’s not really what the reports’ authors are saying.

Finally, the IAC noted, “the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input” as well as “the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work. The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review” (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all. That’s a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. — go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report. Nothing to see here…keep on moving.

Well I say, hold on, there! The news release means that the IAC report was right. That, in turn, means that the first four IPCC reports were, in fact, unreliable. Not just “possibly flawed” or “could have been improved,” but likely to be wrong and even fraudulent.

It means that all of the “endorsements” of the climate consensus made by the world’s national academies of science — which invariably refer to the reports of the IPCC as their scientific basis — were based on false or unreliable data and therefore should be disregarded or revised. It means that the EPA’s “endangerment finding” — its claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and threat to human health — was wrong and should be overturned.

And what of the next IPCC report, due out in 2013 and 2014? The near-final drafts of that report have been circulating for months already. They were written by scientists chosen by politicians rather than on the basis of merit; many of them were reviewing their own work and were free to ignore the questions and comments of people with whom they disagree. Instead of “confidence,” we will get “level of understanding scales” that are just as meaningless.

And on this basis we should transform the world’s economy to run on breezes and sunbeams?

In 2010, we learned that much of what we thought we knew about global warming was compromised and probably false. On June 27, the culprits confessed and promised to do better. But where do we go to get our money back?

WryHeat comment:

This report confirms many of the criticisms “skeptics” have had about the IPCC. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, the IPCC reports are political rather than scientific. The EPA uses the IPCC reports to justify the EPA’s draconian regulations on energy production, especially coal. It seems that EPA regulations are based on junk science.

Policies attempting to control carbon dioxide emissions have no basis in fact, nor does the rationale for subsidizing expensive solar and wind generation of electricity.

Some of these criticisms may be found in my posts:

The Case Against the IPCC and Proponents of Dangerous Anthropological Global Warming

The Assumed Authority

IPCC and Peer Review

Book Review: The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert, an IPCC Exposé

The American Petroleum Institute and others petitioned the EPA seeking relief from the mandate. The EPA dismissed the petition saying, “the objections raised in the petition [i.e., cellulosic ethanol does not exist] …are not of central relevance to the outcome of the rule because they do not provide substantial support for the argument that the Renewable Fuel Standard program should be revised as suggested by petitioners…”

The EPA says the mandate provides incentive for companies to begin producing cellulosic ethanol.

Production of cellulosic ethanol from wood chips has been around for a long time.

According to researcher Robert Rapier, “In 1819, Henri Braconnot, a French chemist, first discovered how to unlock the sugars from cellulose by treating biomass with sulfuric acid. The technique was later used by the Germans to first commercialize cellulosic ethanol from wood in 1898. But believe it or not, commercialization also took place in the U.S. in 1910. The Standard Alcohol Company built a cellulosic ethanol plant in Georgetown, South Carolina to process waste wood from a lumber mill. Standard Alcohol later built a second plant in Fullerton, Louisiana. Each plant produced 5,000 to 7,000 gallons of ethanol per day from wood waste, and both were in production for several years.” But they ultimately failed.

In spite of that history, there is no successful commercial production today in the U.S. The EPA wants us to repeat the mistakes of the past.

Current attempts at producing cellulosic ethanol are experimenting with the grass Miscanthus giganteus. The trouble with this approach is that the yearly production from1,000 acres would be equal to 55 seconds of U.S. oil consumption according to Rapier. So how much land would it take to meet the mandate?

The whole idea of using ethanol is to reduce our use of foreign petroleum. But growing the grass or corn takes petroleum to farm and process the source material. Also ethanol has less energy than gasoline so we wind up using more gasoline anyway.

The whole thing is just so much folly, but such is the state of energy policy in the Obama administration.

See also:

Ethanol fuel not as green as you think

Ethanol from Sugarcane, not so green

Ethanol mandate fails economically and environmentally