The Overbearing EPA

[American Patriot]

If Romney gets in there, we need to start an avalanche of "Shut down the EPA"

[vector7]

December 20, 2012
Obama Shuts Down Coal Plant



AP Graphics

Power Company Loses Some of Its Appetite for Coal


(NY TIMES) Coal took another serious hit Wednesday — in the heart of coal country.


American Electric Power, or A.E.P., the nation’s biggest consumer of coal, announced that it would shut its coal-burning boilers at the Big Sandy electric power plant near Louisa, Ky., a 1,100-megawatt facility that since the early 1960s has been burning coal that was mined locally.

Big Sandy this year became a symbol of the plight of the coal industry nationwide. Strict new environmental regulations are forcing large utilities to spend billions of dollars to retrofit old coal-burning plants or shut them down, replacing them in most cases with equipment that uses cleaner-burning natural gas.

A.E.P., which is based in Ohio, has repeatedly changed its mind over what to do with Big Sandy, a big employer in eastern Kentucky, both at the 120-employee plant itself and in the Appalachian-area coal mines that feed it 2.5 million tons of coal each year.

In May, the power company withdrew a plan to spent $1 billion to retrofit Big Sandy so that it could continue to operate. But that would have required a 31 percent increase in electricity rates for eastern Kentucky residents.

On Wednesday, A.E.P. announced that it would close both of the coal-burning furnaces at Big Sandy in 2015, but left open the possibility that one of the units would be retrofitted to use natural gas. Area residents, if the Kentucky Public Service Commission approves the plan, would see an 8 percent increase in their electricity rates — to replace Big Sandy’s production with electricity from West Virginia — much less than the earlier plan.

But the decision still hurts, said State Representative Rocky Adkins, a Democrat who represents the area.

“It’s kind of like we have had our heart and soul taken from us,” said Mr. Adkins, who also is the majority floor leader of the Kentucky House. “The impact on the economy here is just going to be devastating.”

This has been a bad year for the coal industry.

A total of 55 plants, including Big Sandy, have closed or have announced plans to shut down, according to a count by the Sierra Club. That will leave 395 coal-burning plants in the United States, compared with 522 in 2010, according to the Sierra Club.

[American Patriot]

EPA head resigns; Obama ‘most transparent administration’ pledge up in a nom de plume of smoke

Tweet

By Doug Powers • December 28, 2012 11:15 AM
**Written by Doug Powers
Yesterday, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced that she would be stepping down after four years at her post, purportedly to seek “new challenges” and to spend more time with her family. However, she didn’t mention if the family she’d be spending more time with is the Jacksons, or the Windsors.
From Mark Tapscott via Ace of Spades:

After years of whispers that EPA officials frequently used private email addresses, fake names and coded messages to circumvent the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, Jackson admitted recently to using “Richard Windsor” as her chosen nom de plume on a government email account.


That was her choice because it reminded her of a much-beloved family pet, she claimed. (At least she didn’t ask how anybody could suspect a puppy lover like her of any wrongdoing.) The EPA inspector general opened an investigation into the matter because it is against federal law to use nonofficial or secret email addresses to conduct official business.

In 2009 President Obama said “we will achieve our goal of making this administration the most open and transparent administration in history,” but he forgot to mention that they also really really love to honor their pets in bizarre ways that in no way undercut the transparency pledge.
Jackson’s use of a fake name on government emails wasn’t mentioned in most MSM stories about her resignation, but it likely played a role in the decision:

The agency did not offer an explanation. But Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said the scrutiny over the alias emails is clearly a factor.


“Life’s full of coincidences, but this is too many,” he told FoxNews.com. “She had no choice.”


Horner and CEI earlier this year had sued the EPA for documents pertaining to Jackson’s use of alias email accounts. She was said to operate under the name “Richard Windsor” — the use of those accounts has since drawn the scrutiny of Republican members of Congress, as well as triggered an audit by the EPA inspector general.


According to court documents, the EPA — represented by the Justice Department — two weeks ago agreed to release as many as 12,000 emails pertaining to the CEI request beginning by Jan. 14, at a rate of 3,000 documents per month. The court accepted the schedule last week.


Horner said the increased scrutiny on the alias account, coupled with what those emails might contain regarding the administration’s alleged “war on coal,” likely contributed to Jackson’s announcement Thursday.

By the way, sure, Jackson resigned, but these days that word seems to have a very loose definition, so don’t be surprised to see her back at a different desk. However, if she really does leave, Windsor Jackson probably won’t have any trouble finding another job. It certainly hasn’t been a problem for others who worked under her.


Now if you’ll excuse me, I just got an email from a federal government account from somebody named “Champ Malarkey” — better go see what that’s all about.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

[Ryan Ruck]

EPA To Outlaw Many Wood Burning Stoves

January 11, 2013

Our ever so helpful government has decided that your wood burning stove is now a danger to the world. In another attempt to outlaw the off grid lifestyle, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the same agency that was recently caught using drones to spy on Americans, is now going after home owners who use Wood Burning Stoves to heat their homes.

Shortly after the re-election of President Obama, the agency announced new radical environmental regulations that threaten to effect people who live off the grid. The EPA's new environmental regulations reduce the amount of airborne fine-particle matter from 15 micrograms to 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air.

This means that most wood burning stoves would now fall into a class that would deemed unacceptable under these new draconian measures. The EPA has even launched a nifty new website called burn wise to try to sway public opinion.

On their site, while trying to convince people to get rid of their old stoves and buy the new EPA-certified stoves, they state that these older stoves must be scraped and cannot be resold.

From the EPA Site:

The local air pollution agency says I can't sell my old wood stove to help pay for an EPA-certified wood stove. Why is that?

Replacing an older stove with a cleaner-burning stove will not improve air quality if the older stove is reused somewhere else. For this reason, wood stove changeout programs usually require older stoves to be destroyed and recycled as scrap metal, or rendered inoperable.

Let's hope this doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the newly created Department of Homeland Security Environmental Justice Units? The next thing you know we might all be getting a knock at the door..... Your Neighbor reported that you might be burning some wood, do you mind if we take a look around?

[American Patriot]

The EPA can kiss my ass.

[Ryan Ruck]

EPA Imposes Controversial New Rule On Soot Pollution

December 14, 2012

The Environmental Protection Agency on Friday issued its first major regulation since the Nov. 6 election, imposing new air quality rules on soot pollution in what critics called evidence of a post-election "regulatory cliff."

The EPA rule reduces by 20 percent the maximum amount of soot released into the air from smokestacks, diesel trucks and other sources of pollution.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said the new standard will save thousands of lives each year and reduce the burden of illness in communities across the country, as people "benefit from the simple fact of being able to breathe cleaner air."

But the new soot standard has been highly anticipated by environmental and business groups, who have battled over whether it will protect public health or cause job losses.

The American Petroleum Institute warned Friday that the new rule "is unnecessary and could drive up costs for new and expanding businesses trying to hire employees."

"There is no compelling scientific evidence for the policy decision to develop more stringent standards. The existing standards are working and will continue improving air quality," API Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman said in a statement. "We fear this new rule may be just the beginning of a 'regulatory cliff'."

Feldman was referring to a host of forthcoming environmental regulations. Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who for months has been warning about those regulations, called Friday's announcement "the first in an onslaught of post-election rulemakings that will place considerable burdens on our struggling economy."

"And so it begins," Inhofe said.

Announcement of the new standard met a court deadline in a lawsuit by 11 states and public health groups. The new annual standard is 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air, down from the current 15 micrograms per cubic meter.

Soot, or fine particulate matter, is made up of microscopic particles released from smokestacks, diesel trucks, wood-burning stoves and other sources and contributes to haze. Breathing in soot can cause lung and heart problems, contributing to heart attacks, strokes and asthma attacks.

Environmental groups and public health advocates welcomed the new standard, saying it will protect millions of Americans at risk for soot-related asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart disease and premature death.

Dr. Norman H. Edelman, chief medical officer for the American Lung Association, said a new standard will force the industry to clean up what he called a "lethal pollutant."

Reducing soot pollution "will prevent heart attacks and asthma attacks and will keep children out of the emergency room and hospitals," Edelman said in a statement. "It will save lives."

But congressional Republicans and industry officials called the new standard overly strict and said it could hurt economic growth and cause job losses in areas where pollution levels are determined to be too high.

Ross Eisenberg, vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, said the new rule is "yet another costly, overly burdensome" regulation that is "out of sync" with President Barack Obama's executive order last year to streamline federal regulations.

The new rule will "place many promising new projects --and the jobs they create -- into permit limbo," Eisenberg said.

Jackson and other administration officials said the new rule was based on a rigorous scientific review. Only 66 of more than 3,000 U.S. counties would fail to meet the proposed standard, which takes effect in 2014. All but seven counties should meet the proposed standard by 2020 with no additional actions needed beyond compliance with existing and pending rules set by the EPA, the official said.

The administration has said it will work with states and counties to ensure they can meet the new soot standards by 2020, when stronger enforcement of the rule is expected.

The Obama administration had sought to delay the new soot standards until after the November election, but a federal judge ordered officials to act sooner, and the administration released a draft proposed rule in June.

[American Patriot]

Wood makes soot.

They will ban that next.

[Malsua]

Wood burning is already verboten in fancy schmancy places where liberals are rooted in like intestinal parasites.

[American Patriot]

lol

Boulder Colorado comes to mind now that you mention it.

But that is a local rule, not a government EPA rule. haha

[Ryan Ruck]

Company Fined $500,000 By US EPA For Selling A DPF Removal Kit

January 18, 2013

In a court settlement with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), automotive electronics manufacturer Edge Products has agreed to pay a $500,000 civil penalty for manufacturing and selling electronic devices that allowed owners of model year 2007 and later GM, Ford and Dodge diesel pickup trucks to remove diesel particulate filters (DPF) from their vehicles.

The company, located in Ogden, Utah, sold more than 9,000 of these devices nationwide, over the period of January 2009 through April 2011. This resulted in an estimated 158 tons of excess PM emissions—equivalent to the emissions from 422 new long-haul semi trucks operating for a period of 29 years, according to the EPA.

In addition to the fine, the consent decree requires Edge to offer to buy back the devices from anyone who possesses one. In order to sell the device back to Edge, the truck from which the device came must be returned to its original factory programming. Edge is also required to spend at least $157,600 to implement an emission mitigation project to offset the excess PM emissions that it caused. Edge will use the additional funds to offer rebates to individuals who own old wood-burning stoves and who wish to replace them with cleaner burning appliances such as new pellet stoves or EPA-certified wood stoves.

The civil penalty of $500,000 is based on the United States’ determination that Edge has a limited ability to pay a penalty in this matter.

Shortly after the introduction of diesel particulate filters in the United states in 2007, a number of suppliers started offering DPF removal kits (also known as “DPF delete” kits) which allow for the removal of the DPF in order to improve vehicle mileage and performance. Most of the kits have been targeting medium-duty engines, such as those used in pickup trucks. The DPF delete kits include a section of open piping that mechanically replaces the DPF and an electronic kit that simulates the DPF sensors and other functions for the engine controller. The case against Edge appears to be the first instance of an enforcement action by the US federal authorities against the sales and installation of DPF delete kits.

[American Patriot]

What?

Huh?

What the FUCK is this about?

[American Patriot]

Shut DOWN the fucking EPA.

[Ryan Ruck]

New diesel trucks have all sorts of pollution control devices on them now which include things like urea injection and diesel particulate filters which reduce the power and fuel efficiency of the diesel engines they're on.

Edge was selling particulate filter elimination kits which, by law, are legal to sell so long as they are not used in on-road vehicles.

Of course, people have been buying them to use in on-road vehicles and now the EPA is holding Edge responsible for the end-users' actions.

Complete and total bullshit on all levels...

[vector7]

Under Obama, Electricity Rates Are ‘Necessarily’ Skyrocketing

By Jim Geraghty

March 28, 2012 10:52 A.M.

The Energy Information Administration has updated its numbers for the average retail price for electricity to ultimate customers.

For January 2012, the most recent month available, the average residential price was 11.43 cents per kilowatt hour, the average commercial price was 9.88 cents per kilowatt hour, and the average industrial price was 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour. The EIA noted that unseasonably warm weather reduced sales of electricity in many states.

The 2011 average price was 11.8 cents per hour for residential use, 10.32 cents for commercial, 6.89 for industrial. That set a record for the highest annual average for residential use electricity.

Rates have increased steadily in the past five to six years, even during the lengthy recession and a time of sluggish economic growth at best. Back in 2005, the average price was 9.45 cents per hour for residential use, 8.67 cents for commercial, 5.73 for industrial. That set a record for the highest annual average for residential use electricity. These price increases have come while demand has grown quite slowly; the EIA reports that from 2000 to 2009, increases in electricity demand averaged 0.5 percent per year.

USA Today noted in December: “Electric bills have skyrocketed in the last five years, a sharp reversal from a quarter-century when Americans enjoyed stable power bills even as they used more electricity. Households paid a record $1,419 on average for electricity in 2010, the fifth consecutive yearly increase above the inflation rate, a USA TODAY analysis of government data found. The jump has added about $300 a year to what households pay for electricity. That’s the largest sustained increase since a run-up in electricity prices during the 1970s.”

If only someone had warned us that under Obama’s policies, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket… wait, someone did!

Barack Obama warned us under his plans, “electricity rates will necessary skyrocket…. Coal-powered plants, natural gas plants, you name it, whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to retrofit their operations, that will cost money, that they will pass that money on to consumers.”




Electricity Bills Are About to 'Necessarily Skyrocket'



by Derek Hunter 9 Jun 2012 post a comment

In January of 2008, then Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, talking about his energy plan, told the San Francisco Chronicle, “When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal…under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket…” He wasn’t kidding.

While he was talking about his cap and trade plan, something that went nowhere in Congress, even when Democrats controlled it with a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, his objective of changing how we generate electricity hasn’t changed. Neither has his lack of concern for the cost to consumers.

President Obama hates coal because he has deemed it too “dirty.” It’s also the largest generator of electricity in this country. Were there a cheaper, easier (and even cleaner) source of electricity generation, the market would have embraced it because that’s how markets work. But there isn’t, at least not yet.

But rather than allow the market to work, something new to be developed, the President seeks to force it, to steer it where he wants it to go. It’s something politicians have tried to do since there was a market to steer, and something they’ve failed to do successfully since their first try (Great Leap Forward anyone?).

President Obama wants to steer electricity generation away from coal to natural gas. The only problem with that is our system is set up for coal, coal is abundant, and coal is easier to get. While the market may naturally gravitate to natural gas as it becomes easier to get through fracking – something the Left has demonized and is fighting – we’re not there yet.

Just like the public and humiliating failures of subsidized solar companies like Solyndra and so many others, the technology may be there, but simply existing doesn’t make it practical. Neither does willing it to be.

The automobile existed for years before it took over from trains and streetcars as the dominant mode of transportation, not because it didn’t work, but because it took until Henry Ford found a way to make them affordable. The government didn’t force it, the market did.

President Obama, through the power of regulation, is seeking to force the electricity generation market in a direction it simply isn’t ready to go. And consumers will be the ones who suffer.

Coal fueled electricity generating plants can’t just flip a switch and use natural gas. Changing them over is time consuming and, most importantly to consumers, very expensive. The cost of doing so will not be eaten by these electric companies; it will be passed on to consumers. And, as President Obama said, the electric bills of those consumers will “necessarily skyrocket.”

This isn’t just hyperbole. A survey of electricity executive indicates 90 percent of them expect the costs of moving away from coal power plants to lead to higher electricity bills for consumers. More than half of the survey respondents predict at least a 10 percent increase.

More than a survey, as Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment, reports:

…PJM Interconnection, the company that operates the electric grid for 13 states held its 2015 capacity auction…The market-clearing price for new 2015 capacity – almost all natural gas – was $136 per megawatt. That’s eight times higher than the price for 2012, which was just $16 per megawatt.

But don’t expect this White House to care. They have no reason to. These price spikes are a few years away and will come long after President Obama will face voters for the last time. He’ll either be a President in his last term or a former President, neither of which carry accountability.

The accountability must come now, before it’s too late.

Congress can move against the President’s plans to regulate existing and new power coal power plants, but that is unlikely with the Senate being controlled by Democrats. It would also require him not to veto any action Congress takes, which won’t happen either. So right now, this is the future we’re facing.

Since legislative action or a regulatory change of course are unlikely, voter education is the only hope. The promise of “green energy” sounds great, but it’s just sounds at this point. We may get to the point where we can generate the electricity we need through sheer force of will or some other way the global warming true believers support, but that will have to come the way every important innovation in all areas of the economy have come – through the market finding a profitable way to meet consumer demand. We aren’t there yet.

Until we get there, coal is still the best, most efficient,and most affordable source of the electricity we need. All the regulations and wishes in the world won’t change that fact, only the market can.

[vector7]

NYC Mayor Bloomberg: 'Coal is a dead man walking'


By Zack Colman
02/27/13 11:30 AM ET



New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday that the United States’ coal industry’s days are numbered.

“Even though the coal industry doesn’t totally know it yet or is ready to admit it, its day is done. … Here in the U.S., I’m happy to say, the king is dead. Coal is a dead man walking,” Bloomberg said at the Advanced Research Projects Agency — Energy (ARPA-E) Energy Innovation Summit near Washington, D.C.

Bloomberg has been a vocal advocate for killing coal-fired power. He said health problems from pollution and climate change-exacerbated events like Hurricane Sandy have fomented growing recognition that coal “doesn’t deserve” its reputation as a cheap energy source.

For now, coal is still the leading supplier of electricity. It accounted for 37.4 percent of the nation's electricity mix last year, according to U.S. Energy Information Administration statistics released Tuesday.

But that figure also represented a 12.5 percent drop from the previous year. Natural gas, on the other hand, spiked 21.4 percent to provide 30.4 percent of the nation's power.

Bloomberg attributed coal's struggles to the Environmental Protection Agency's regulations to curb emissions in the name of public health, grassroots environmental efforts and low natural-gas prices.

But Bloomberg noted the U.S. still has a long way to go to achieve “the sustainable future that we all want.”

Coal-fired power plants still account for 40 percent of the nation’s carbon emissions, he noted. And while one-sixth of those facilities are slated for retirement, he said that still leaves a majority standing.

Imposing emissions rules on existing coal-fired plants could be one way to shutter more coal-fired generation, which green groups are pushing Obama to do.

Bloomberg said public health-advocates and those concerned about climate change are ready for a long "regulatory trench war" regarding coal-fired power.

Industry and congressional Republicans, however, have pushed back against many of the EPA emissions regulations. They say the rules are economically burdensome, and have accused the White House of targeting the coal industry.

While industry and many Republicans have fought to protect coal-fired power, Bloomberg has had his hands in many areas in an attempt to end it.

Bloomberg Philanthropies awarded a $50 million grant to Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign, which aims to retire one-third of the nation’s coal-fired fleet by 2020.

Bloomberg Philanthropies also gave a $6-million grant to the Environmental Defense Fund to work on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, regulations.

The process injects a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals into tight-rock formations to unlock oil-and-gas deposits deep underground. Green groups are concerned the practice could contaminate drinking water, while industry contends it’s safe.

Bloomberg, who touted natural gas’ lower carbon content compared with coal, said companies should work with environmental groups to design regulations with which they can live.

[American Patriot]

Sick... all these people are bloody ill and should be removed from office and prevented from owning guns or having body guards with guns.

[American Patriot]

Republicans Stage Boycott of Obama EPA Nominee Gina McCarthy

Sen. Barbara Boxer tells Republican colleagues to 'get out of the fringe lane'

By Rebekah Metzler

May 9, 2013 RSS Feed Print None of the eight Republicans on the Senate committee overseeing Gina McCarthy's confirmation to lead the Environmental Protection Agency appeared at Thursday's committee meeting.

Republican senators staged a boycott of the nomination of Gina McCarthy as head of the Environmental Protection Agency Thursday, surprising the top Democrat on the Senate committee in charge of the vote and furthering a pattern of delay that also postponed a confirmation vote on President Barack Obama's Labor nominee Wednesday.
[OP-ED: David Vitter: Gina McCarthy Has a Lot to Answer For]
"I am rather stunned that this is happening," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the committee chairwoman. "I never even knew they were boycotting this until I got a letter [Thursday] morning."
In a letter sent to Boxer, the Republican committee members said the EPA was "stonewalling" their requests for further information on McCarthy.
"As you know, all Republicans on our EPW committee have asked EPA to honor five very reasonable and basic requests in conjunction with the nomination of Gina McCarthy which focus on openness and transparency," they wrote. "While you have allowed EPA adequate time to fully respond before any mark-up on the nomination, EPA has stonewalled on four of the five categories. Because of this, no Republican member of the Committee will attend [Thursday]'s mark-up if it is held."
Sen. David Vitter, R-La., the committee's top Republican, said in a release that McCarthy had provided "nonresponsive answers" and left Republicans "completely unsatisfied."
[WALSH: Obama's Cabinet Picks Signal Climate Change Focus]
The absence of all eight Republican committee members left the panel without a quorum, though had all Democrats been present, they would have been able to proceed. Boxer, however, dismissed that approach – at least for now.
"Today we are asking the Republicans to come back, we will schedule another mark-up," she said, adding it was never her intention to push the confirmation today without Republicans present.
But the Democrats present at the hearing each took their turn bashing their conservative colleagues over the walkout, extolling McCarthy's experience and willingness to answer what they called an unprecedented number of questions.
"They may not like the answers, but she's given them the answers," said Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. "I'm an old governor, I believe that elections have consequences."
The Republicans, in an attempt to buffer themselves from criticism, cited a boycott precedence in 2003 when Democrats did the same thing to oppose an EPA nominee, Michael Leavitt, under the Bush administration.
[READ: Energy Industry Says Obama's EPA Pick 'Not So Bad']
"Leavitt was scheduled for a committee vote on Oct. 1, 2003. Due to the Democrat boycott, the Committee vote was postponed until Oct. 15, 2003," Vitter said in a release. "Leavitt received a vote on the Senate floor on Oct. 28, 2003."
Boxer said the Republicans were making "false accusations" that their questions were going unanswered and they were merely blocking McCarthy because they disagree with her and the Obama administration's position on the environment. She accused them of "harassing and haranguing" McCarthy.
"At this stage, their opposition even to allowing us to vote shows how outside the mainstream they are, it shows how obstructionist they are, it shows how their pledge to do better with women voters is false," Boxer said. "How could you have a more qualified woman than Gina McCarthy? This is outrageous. Get out of the fringe lane."
Boxer, who is currently working with Vitter to pass water resource legislation, said she would speak to her Republican counterpart on reaching an agreement for moving forward on McCarthy, who already received a unanimous Senate confirmation for her current position.

[Malsua]

That woman is a militant carbon trading dipshit. She's a big statist and kudos to anyone who prevents her nomination to the EPA head.

[Ryan Ruck]

Another Obama admin scandal coming to light where Conservatives are being targeted...

EPA Waives Fee Requests For Friendly Groups, Denies Conservative Groups

May 14, 2013

Conservative groups seeking information from the Environmental Protection Agency have been routinely hindered by fees normally waived for media and watchdog groups, while fees for more than 90 percent of requests from green groups were waived, according to requests reviewed by the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

CEI reviewed Freedom of Information Act requests sent between January 2012 and this spring from several environmental groups friendly to the EPA’s mission, and several conservative groups, to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy for media and watchdog groups. Government agencies are supposed to waive fees for groups disseminating information for public benefit.

“This is as clear an example of disparate treatment as the IRS’ hurdles selectively imposed upon groups with names ominously reflecting an interest in, say, a less intrusive or biased federal government,” said CEI fellow Chris Horner.

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.

Of the requests that were denied, the EPA said the group either didn’t respond to requests for justification of a waiver, or didn’t express intent to disseminate the information to the general public, according to documents obtained by The Washington Examiner. CEI, on the other hand, had its requests denied 93 percent of the time. One request was denied because CEI failed to express its intent to disseminate the information to the general public. The rest were denied because the agency said CEI “failed to demonstrate that the release of the information requested significantly increases the public understanding of government operations or activities.” Similarly, requests from conservative groups Judicial Watch and National Center for Public Policy Research were approved half the time, and all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied. “Their practice is to take care of their friends and impose ridiculous obstacles to deny problematic parties’ requests for information,” said Horner. Freedom of Information Act requests from CEI forced the EPA to release emails under the the “Richard Windsor” alias former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson used to conduct government business. CEI has also filed FOIA requests for emails, text messages and instant messages from Jackson and EPA nominee Gina McCarthy. Horner said he believes the EPA has denied CEI’s requests because his think tank is the most active group seeking to hold the agency accountable. “This is a clear pattern of favoritism for allied groups and a concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly,” he said. “The left hand of big government reaches out to give a boost 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.” Update: An earlier version incorrectly called the Natural Resources Defense Council the “National Resources Defense Council.”

[American Patriot]