The Overbearing EPA

[Ryan Ruck]

Come on Mal, why would you do that in the middle of fundamental transformation!

Do you hate progress and Amerika America?

[Malsua]

I hate an America that allows the EPA to become the Gestapo.

[Ryan Ruck]

[Malsua]

And that right there is what passes for a "Hero" for ghetto rats.

[Ryan Ruck]

Agencies Reach Agreement On Engines

August 13, 2014


A Putnam County, Florida, firefighter reaches into his vehicle’s cab in 2011. The vehicle is a Humvee converted to a brush fire truck. The vehicle was turned in to DLA Disposition Services by the Tennessee Army National Guard and then issued to firefighters in Florida. Photo courtesy Putnam County Emergency Services Department

The Defense Logistics Agency is resuming transfer, donation and sale of excess military equipment covered by a national security exemption to the Clean Air Act. Equipment covered by this exemption, which includes certain diesel vehicles and diesel power generators, was put on hold in June in order to consult with EPA to ensure that no clean air violations were occurring.

After discussions, EPA decided it would continue to recognize national security exemptions for transferred equipment, and the DLA dispensation program is resuming. Recipients of the excess property include law enforcement agencies and firefighting organizations, as well as state and local governments.

DLA Disposition Services, the DLA field activity that manages excess property, resumed the flow of all authorized equipment for firefighters and law enforcement July 9 through the Law Enforcement Support Office and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Forest Service programs for firefighters. The transfer to federal agencies, donations to state and local governments, and public sale will resume as soon as computerized property listings can be reset, which is expected next week. Rules on ownership of items and accountability standards will also continue as before.

In June, DLA Disposition Services found that some military diesel engines were approved for use only under an EPA national security exemption. DLA, out of an abundance of caution, halted dispensing relevant excess equipment in order to ensure that there was no potential CAA violation that resulted from transferring items with national security exemptions. On Aug. 12, the issue was fully resolved when EPA officials told DLA that after fully studying the issue, the agency will continue to recognize the national security exemptions for transferred equipment based on DLA Disposition Services’ current disposal procedures.

[Ryan Ruck]

EPA Chief: CO2 Regulations Are About ‘Justice’ For ‘Communities Of Color’

August 27, 2014

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed global warming regulations aren’t just about stemming global temperature rises — according to agency’s chief, they are also about “justice” for “communities of color.”

“Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in a teleconference call with environmental activists. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.”

McCarthy is referring to the EPA’s proposed rule that would limit carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. The agency says the rule will not only help fight global warming, but will also improve public health as coal-fired power plants are shuttered. McCarthy, however, put special emphasis on how the rule would reduce asthma rates, which affect African-American children.

“Asthma disproportionately affects African-American kids,” McCarthy added. “In just the first year these standards go into effect, we’ll avoid up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks — and those numbers go up from there.”

“These standards are also doing more than to just address public health. By the time these standards are fully in place in 2030, the average household will also save $8 a month on electricity and create thousands of jobs that can’t be shipped overseas,” McCarthy said.

The teleconference was hosted by the environmental group Green For All. The group bills itself as an outreach organization seeking to educate “communities of color” about fighting global warming. But Green For All also describes itself as “radical enough to push a deeply justice-based agenda.”

“Green For All acknowledges the need to disrupt the current economy, because we understand that our current economy was based upon human trafficking, the exploitation of labor, and violent racism,” according to the group’s website. “We are safe enough to be invited into spaces where power-building groups are not, and radical enough to push a deeply justice-based agenda in those spaces. We are radical enough to partner with grassroots organizations when other national groups are turned away, and enough of an ally to offer resources and support in those spaces.”

“As a black woman who suffers from asthma, I know first-hand how climate change can affect communities of color,” said Nikki Silvestri, Green For All’s executive director. “We are more susceptible to extreme weather, storms and heat-related deaths. But, I also know that we want climate action now.”

On the call, McCarthy and Green For All activists asked attendees to file regulatory comments in the support of the EPA’s carbon dioxide rule.

The rule has been heavily supported by environmental groups, who have also been using global warming as a way to extend their activist base into minority communities. The group 350.org recently published a piece trying to connect the crisis in Ferguson, Missouri to global warming.

“It was not hard for me to make the connection between the tragedy in Ferguson, Missouri, and the catalyst for my work to stop the climate crisis,” writes Deirdre Smith, strategic partnership coordinator for the environmental group 350.org.

“To me, the connection between militarized state violence, racism, and climate change was common-sense and intuitive,” she said.

But not everyone in the African-American community has gotten behind the EPA’s proposed power plant regulations.

“African-American businesses, entrepreneurs and workers need to better understand this rule because the potential impact may hit them more directly, and more severely, than any other group,” wrote Harry Alford, president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.

“Higher energy costs could be devastating to small businesses, for which energy costs are often the highest, or one of the highest, operating expenses,” Alford wrote. “Thousands of jobs by definition will be eliminated by this rule, but the same certainty does not exist in the promise of creating new jobs.”

[Ryan Ruck]

This plant is one of 2 very near me.

Duke Energy To Stop Using Coal At Beckjord Ahead Of Schedule

August 29, 2014



A utility says it will stop burning coal at a Clermont County power plant that was the site of a recent oil spill into the Ohio River.

Charlotte, North Carolina-based Duke Energy says it will retire the last two coal-fired units Sept. 1 at the Beckjord plant near New Richmond.

Duke says increasingly stringent federal regulations on power plant emissions are behind the decision. It had said earlier it would retire all coal-fired units there by January 2015.

Four oil-fired combustion turbines will remain at the site, primarily used for generating power during high demand.

Authorities said recently that cleanup was mostly complete of an estimated 9,000 gallons of oil spilled earlier this month. Duke has said the spill apparently happened because of a valve left open.

[American Patriot]

Communities of Color? Global Warming?

I would think that, being "of Color" they would APPRECIATE the heat more than most.....

(Was that racist?)


Assholes.

[Ryan Ruck]

'Game We Can’t Win': Coal States Brace For Growing Number Of Plant Closures Over EPA Rules

December 5, 2014

The energy industry and coal-producing states are projecting a wave of power plant closures in the final two years of the Obama administration as Environmental Protection Agency regulations take hold.

The goal of the agency's campaign is to cut down on carbon pollution. However, industry groups and agencies say the EPA’s demands are simply too difficult to meet and will lead to powering down many facilities -- eliminating hundreds of jobs and hurting cash-strapped state economies.

“It’s a game we can’t win,” Alan Minier, chairman of the Wyoming Public Service Commission, told FoxNews.com.

The number of projected closures has steadily risen. Though estimates vary, according to the Institute for Energy Research a total of 37 states including Wyoming are seeing closures. The group lists nearly 170 plants that have closed or are closing, or are being converted to other purposes.

IER cites a handful of existing EPA regulations, as well as a major proposal to cut emissions from existing power plants. That calls for cutting emissions nationally by 30 percent of 2005 levels by 2030. The plan assumes emissions can be curbed through remedial action in four general areas: improved efficiency of coal plants, enhanced energy conservation measures, increased natural gas and renewable power generation.

But industry groups say in many cases, it's too heavy a lift. And they say not only jobs, but the nation's power supply will suffer.

The Institute for Energy Research, in its latest report, predicts more than 72 gigawatts of "electrical generating capacity" are going offline. “To put 72 GW in perspective, that is enough electrical generation capacity to reliably power 44.7 million homes – or every home in every state west of the Mississippi River, excluding Texas,” IER report says.

The EPA has received hundreds of thousands of comments on the proposal as it pushes to finalize the rules.

The agency calls it a "commonsense plan" that will tackle the health and economic risks of climate change, including avoiding thousands of premature deaths.

But as the agency claims to be giving states flexibility, those trying to meet the new eco-friendly rules say they are up against unrealistic standards.

In Wyoming, for example, four coal-fired power plants are set to be prematurely shuttered because they fall short of the requirements imposed by the Obama administration to curb carbon emissions.

Minier, who wrote a Nov. 21 letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, believes the federal proposal overestimates utilities’ ability to improve the efficiency of their coal-fired power plants, overstates the potential growth of renewable power and makes incorrect calculations concerning Wyoming’s natural gas generation.

“I’m trying not to sound alarmist, but it seems to me the scale at which this would affect us, because we are exporters of electricity and coal, I think it will impact our economy in a materially adverse way,” Minier said in a recent interview with the Casper Star-Tribune.

In August, the Government Accountability Office estimated the number of coal-fired power plants that will close by 2025. The GAO, a watchdog agency, had initially estimated that 2 percent to 12 percent of U.S. coal capacity would retire, but the August estimates have it even higher at 13 percent.

“This level of retirements is significantly more retirements than have occurred in the past,” the GAO said.

Other estimates say the proposed carbon rules could close “hundreds” of plants.

States have until June 30, 2016 to come up with a plan to meet and implement the changes.

The problem, at least in states like Wyoming, is the EPA requirements may be too ambitious. Wyoming isn’t going to fall short in one area, Minier told FoxNews.com -- the state will fail all four.

The GAO’s report reinforced concerns many Republicans have that the EPA’s rules are closing down plants. House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, this week urged McCarthy to scrap the "outrageous" power plant proposal.

The EPA argues that efficiency improvements will pay for themselves in terms of fuel costs and other health and environmental benefits.

While Wyoming has a tough climb to meet the standards, its neighbors are no better off.

Colorado and South Dakota need to cut carbon emissions by 35 percent, Utah by 27 percent, and Montana by 21 percent -- while Idaho faces a 33 percent reduction.

But the Obama administration still has plenty of defenders in its regulatory push.

Dean Baker, a D.C.-based economist and the co-founder of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, says shutting down coal plants could be good for not only the environment but also the economy.

Baker told Think Progress that clean alternatives to coal – not just natural gas but wind and solar – are competitive, so switches should come with minimal economic hassle. He also believes that renewables can work in tandem with natural gas to make the transition smoother. Indeed, some of the plants on IER's closure list are converting to natural gas.

[Ryan Ruck]

Even Before Long Winter Begins, Energy Bills Send Shivers in New England

December 13, 2014

John York, who owns a small printing business here, nearly fell out of his chair the other day when he opened his electric bill.

For October, he had paid $376. For November, with virtually no change in his volume of work and without having turned up the thermostat in his two-room shop, his bill came to $788, a staggering increase of 110 percent. “This is insane,” he said, shaking his head. “We can’t go on like this.”

For months, utility companies across New England have been warning customers to expect sharp price increases, for which the companies blame the continuing shortage of pipeline capacity to bring natural gas to the region.

Now that the higher bills are starting to arrive, many stunned customers are finding the sticker shock much worse than they imagined. Mr. York said he would have to reduce his hours, avoid hiring any new employees, cut other expenses and ultimately pass the cost on to his customers.

Like turning back the clocks and putting on snow tires, bracing for high energy bills has become an annual rite of the season in New England. Because the region’s six states — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont — have an integrated electrical grid, they all share the misery.

These latest increases are salt in the wound. New England already pays the highest electricity rates of any region in the 48 contiguous states because it has no fossil fuels of its own and has to import all of its oil, gas and coal. In September, residential customers in New England paid an average retail price of 17.67 cents per kilowatt-hour; the national average was 12.94 cents.

Beyond that, the increases confound common sense, given that global oil prices have dropped to their lowest levels in years, and natural gas is cheap and plentiful from the vast underground shale reserves in nearby Pennsylvania.

But the benefits are not being felt here. Connecticut’s rate of 19.74 cents per kilowatt-hour for September was the highest in the continental United States and twice that of energy-rich states like West Virginia and Louisiana. The lowest rate, 8.95 cents, was in Washington State, where the Columbia River is the nation’s largest producer of hydropower.

For the coming winter, National Grid, the largest utility in Massachusetts, expects prices to rise to 24.24 cents, a record high. The average customer will pay $121.20 a month, a 37 percent increase from $88.25 last winter.

The utilities argue that they are hamstrung unless they can increase the pipeline capacity for natural gas, which powers more than half of New England. That would not only lower costs for consumers, they say, but also create thousands of construction jobs and millions of dollars in tax revenue.

The region has five pipeline systems now. Seven new projects have been proposed. But several of them — including a major gas pipeline through western Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire, and a transmission line in New Hampshire carrying hydropower from Quebec — have stalled because of ferocious opposition.

The concerns go beyond fears about blighting the countryside and losing property to eminent domain. Environmentalists say it makes no sense to perpetuate the region’s dependence on fossil fuels while it is trying to mitigate the effects of climate change, and many do not want to support the gas-extraction process known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, that has made the cheap gas from Pennsylvania available.

Consumers have been left in the middle, as baffled as they are angry. Utilities across the region are holding workshops and town meetings to try to address their concerns and offer tips on energy conservation. About 100 people showed up this month for a meeting at Salem High School here that included a presentation by Liberty Utilities, the largest natural gas distributor in New Hampshire.

John Shore, a company spokesman, told the audience that in times of peak demand, the available natural gas went first to residential and business customers. Some power plants that normally rely on gas then turn to more expensive fuels like oil, although not all plants have the ability to switch fuels. In some cases, electric generating plants go offline, and more expensive generators are used to make up the capacity.

Prices are also up this winter because they are based in part on last winter’s high prices. Arctic blasts from the polar vortex drove up the cost of wholesale power in New England to $5.05 billion for the three months from December 2013 through February 2014 alone — almost the same as the cost for the entire year of 2012.

Patricia Richardson, 78, a Salem retiree in the audience, said she had already had an energy audit on her 100-year-old house, installed triple-pane thermal windows, bought a new boiler, had insulation blown in and put weather stripping around leaks. She could not understand why her bill had still increased, even after pressing Mr. Shore.

Ms. Richardson said after the meeting that his explanation had been confusing. “I wanted to know in my heart that he was giving it to me square,” she said. “But I didn’t get that feeling.”

Many utilities provide rebates when customers buy high-efficiency appliances, and offer free energy audits, savings plans and guidance on limiting energy use. Government programs and nonprofit organizations are stretching to help those who cannot pay the utility bills necessary to make it through this cold, dark season.

But even if these stopgap measures help some households in the short term, the outlook for the long term appears gloomy.

A year ago, the governors of the six New England states agreed to pursue a coordinated regional strategy, including more pipelines and at least one major transmission line for hydropower. The plan called for electricity customers in all six states to subsidize the projects, on the theory that they would make up that money in lower utility bills.

But in August, the Massachusetts Legislature rejected the plan, saying in part that cheap energy would flood the market and thwart attempts to advance wind and solar projects. That halted the whole effort.

“The impasse just kicks the can down the road, and I see no reason why this dynamic isn’t going to be repeated during the heating season for years to come,” said John Howat, a senior policy analyst at the National Consumer Law Center, a Boston-based nonprofit advocacy group for low-income residents.

“I think we need to be more aggressive in pursuing renewables and energy efficiency,” Mr. Howat said. “But I doubt we can implement those solutions quickly enough and at a sufficient scale to relieve the economic burden in the short term on those 30 percent of households that don’t have sufficient income to pay these bills.”

The problem may be getting worse, not only because of pipeline constraints but because old coal and oil power plants are being retired. The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant, which supplies nearly one-third of Vermont’s electricity, is also scheduled to go offline this month.

ISO New England, the independent system operator that oversees the region’s energy market, said it expected there to be “sufficient resources” this winter to meet demand. But in a November assessment, it called the pipeline constraints severe and said the reliability of the system would “continue to be threatened” until the region expanded its pipeline capacity or invested in other energy sources.

Figuring out how much new pipeline might be enough is not an easy calculation. Massachusetts, for one, is analyzing its needs now for a report due at the end of the month. It is a complex process, said Mark Sylvia, the state’s undersecretary for energy, because it must take into account the state’s desires to avoid dependence on one type of fuel, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and ensure reliability “so the lights stay on.”

[Ryan Ruck]

EPA Wants to Monitor How Long Hotel Guests Spend in the Shower

March 17, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wants hotels to monitor how much time its guests spend in the shower.

The agency is spending $15,000 to create a wireless system that will track how much water a hotel guest uses to get them to “modify their behavior.”

“Hotels consume a significant amount of water in the U.S. and around the world,” an EPA grant to the University of Tulsa reads. “Most hotels do not monitor individual guest water usage and as a result, millions of gallons of potable water are wasted every year by hotel guests.”

“The proposed work aims to develop a novel low cost wireless device for monitoring water use from hotel guest room showers,” it said. “This device will be designed to fit most new and existing hotel shower fixtures and will wirelessly transmit hotel guest water usage data to a central hotel accounting system.”

The funding is going toward creating a prototype and market analysis for the device. The goal of the project is to change the behavior of Americans when they stay at hotels.

“This technology will provide hotel guests with the ability to monitor their daily water online or using a smartphone app and will assist hotel guest in modifying their behavior to help conserve water,” the grant said.

The project was filed under “Water conservation,” “Urban water planning,” and “Sustainable water management.”

The EPA also has a WaterSense program that challenges hotels to track their water use and upgrade their restrooms with low-flow toilets and showerheads.

The program also encourages “linen and towel reuse programs” in guest rooms.

The EPA is concerned that the average shower, which lasts just eight minutes, uses 18 gallons of water, and has asked Americans to reduce their shower length by at least one minute.

Tyler W. Johannes, Ph.D., an associate professor in the University of Tulsa’s School of Chemical Engineering who is working on the project, told the Washington Free Beacon that the researchers hope to see the technology “adopted by all major hotels and used across the country.”

He said the device seeks to get hotel guests to limit their showers to seven minutes as a start.

Johannes and his team assumed the average hotel shower lasts 8.2 minutes, using 17.2 gallons of water per guest per shower.

“Initially our device/app seeks to get hotel guests to reduce their water use by 10 percent or to reduce their showers by about one minute,” he said.

Johannes provided a link to Home Water Works, which recommends taking a five minute shower to reduce water use.

The website, which is a project of the Alliance for Water Efficiency, also suggests watering plants with discarded cold water from showers that take a long time to heat up, and taking “navy showers.”

“The method requires three steps: 1) turn on water to rinse body and hair; 2) turn off water while shampooing hair and washing body with soap and washcloth; 3) resume water flow and rinse off all shampoo and soap,” the group said. “Using this technique, the total duration of water flow can easily be reduced to 5 minutes or less.”

[Ryan Ruck]

And the pièce de résistance...

Another $15,000 project the EPA is throwing money at, this one better than the last!

Backyard Burger And Wiener Roasts Targeted By EPA

March 13, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency has its eyes on pollution from backyard barbecues.

The agency announced that it is funding a University of California project to limit emissions resulting in grease drippings with a special tray to catch them and a "catalytic" filtration system.

The $15,000 project has the "potential for global application," said the school.

The school said that the technology they will study with the EPA grant is intended to reduce air pollution and cut the health hazards to BBQ "pit masters" from propane-fueled cookers.

Charged with keeping America's air, water and soil clean, the EPA has been increasingly looking at homeowners, especially their use of pollution emitting tools like lawn mowers.

The school is proposing two fixes to reduce emissions from barbecues. First, they want to cut back on grease flare-ups. The idea: "A slotted and corrugated tray is inserted immediately prior to meat flipping, and removed immediately after. This short contact time prevents the tray from over-heating and volatilizing the collected grease. This collected grease will then drip off into a collection tray and can be used at the pit master's discretion."

But, total capture isn't "practical," so a filter and fan are proposed for installation. "The secondary air filtration system is composed of a single pipe duct system which contains a specialized metal filter, a metal fan blade, a drive shaft, and an accompanying power system with either a motorized or manual method. This system can be powered by either an exterior electric motor with a chain-driven drive shaft, directly spinning the fan blade, or a hand-powered crank," said the project write-up.

The grant is part of the EPA's "National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2014)."

The expected results, according to the proposal:

"We expect to limit the overall air pollution PM [particulate matter] emissions from barbecuing and to alleviate some of the acute health hazards that a barbecue pit master can experience from inhalation. The particulate matter present during cooking with and without the grease diverter and PM2.5 filters will be tested and compared to that of current data using a conventional propane barbecue using a fumehood chamber with detectors at CE-CERT. Personal exposure of PM2.5 will also be monitored throughout the experimentation period to determine the degree of acute exposure of particulates to the cook."

Just imagine a grille that works as well as the current gas cans! Can't you wait?!?!

[Malsua]

If I knew that the EPA was monitoring my water usage, I think I'd turn the spigots on when I arrived. I assume the maid would shut them off at some point.

[Ryan Ruck]

One of the power plants that is near me being shut down. Implications of it's closure go beyond just the lost power generation capability.

Beckjord Retirement Means Tough Times For Pierce Township

February 6, 2015

The closing of the W.C. Beckjord Power Station presents a somber financial picture for Pierce Township.

According to numbers shared with the Pierce Township Board of Trustees by Clermont County Chief Deputy Auditor Chuck Tilbury, the township stands to lose nearly $700,000 revenue annually as a result of the closure. The anticipated revenue loss can be seen in several funds: $34,234.44 from the township’s general fund; $57,011.25 from the road and bridge fund; $69,463.52 from the waste fund; $291,016.31 from police, and $229,097.94 from fire/EMS for a total of $680,823.46. These figures were reached through comparison of 2014 actual receipts to 2016 anticipated receipts.

The plant was officially “retired” last September, according to Sally Thelen, Duke Energy media relations Cincinnati and Kentucky. This means that it was taken offline and is no longer producing energy. The process of closing the plant is ongoing.

The energy generation work at Beckjord that most benefited many communities and a school district for more than 60 years. The plant’s closure is financially impacting Pierce Township, the Village of New Richmond, New Richmond Schools and Clermont County, Tilbury said.

When it comes to power plants, they are made up of two types of assets – real property and public utility personal property, he explained. The real property includes brick and mortar assets such as smoke stacks and land. The personal property is made up of the actual stuff in the plant - the wires, the lift stations, equipment used to transmit the electricity, for examples. There are three types of utility personal property: generation, distribution and transmission. The bulk of the tax dollars realized from Beckjord are from generation of power, Tilbury said

Duke Energy notified governmental agencies about its plans to close Beckjord as early as 2011, he said. At that time, the worst was feared that the plant would close immediately, leaving no time for communities to prepare, he said. The power company did not do that. Instead, it continued generating power until September of last year.

Township Fiscal Officer Karen Register said that the early notification from Duke was beneficial.

“Our departments were told to hunker down in case of worst case scenario,” she said. They embraced a savings attitude, delaying the purchase of new equipment and saving where they could. This resulted in some significant carryover balances, Register said.

“But now there’s nothing left to hold. You can’t save anything. There’s nothing left to save,” she said. All departments will need to dig into the saved balances to meet needs.

The loss of funding is potentially devastating for the fire department which failed a 2.8-mill levy last November. The money would have generated $937,000 annually. The anticipated loss of revenue from Beckjord and the failed levy caused the fire department to postpone the purchase of equipment.

Fire Chief Craig Wright said that the department’s newest ambulance is a 2006 model. Recently, one of the squads broke down while transporting a patient. Anderson Fire and Rescue was called in to transport the patient.

“We need to find a way (to buy a new squad),” Trustee Bonnie Batchler said. “We can’t justify losing a patient because our levy went down.” The township is currently considering securing a loan to purchase a new squad and is also considering a fire levy for the November ticket. Batchler said the committee is meeting now and hopes to have more information to share with the public in April.

Register said the township is also concerned that because its employees are among some of the lowest paid in the county, they might lose people. In fact, several employees, mostly firefighters, have left the township for better paying jobs. Because of this, following a Feb. 4 executive session, the trustees approved a 2 percent cost of living increase for employees not represented by a bargaining unit.

Trustee Chair Robert Pautke said that while the news is dire, the township knew what it was up against. In the short term, the township is prepared because it prepared for a worst case scenario of losing 100 percent of the tax monies from Beckjord. That has not occurred.

Moving forward, the township has some tough choices to make.

“Residents will have to decide what level of service they want and if they’re willing to pay for it,” Pautke said.

[Ryan Ruck]

Major Utility To Begin Closing Down Power Plants Next Month

April 6, 2015

One of the country's largest coal utilities will begin closing power plants next month in four states, as strict federal environmental regulations begin to kick in.

The company, American Electric Power, made the announcement in a notice advising employees at the electricity stations that it plans to close six power plants in Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio and Indiana, according to news reports.

The company said it plans to shutter as much as 6,000 megawatts of power plant capacity in seven states by the start of 2016. The closures were planned as far back as 2011 to comply with new pollution regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency, called the Mercury and Toxics Standard, that go into effect later this month.

The initial six power plants will close beginning May 31. The plants include the Philip Sporn, Kammer and Kanawha Valley power stations in West Virginia, the Muskingum River Plant in Ohio, the Tanners Creek Plant in Indiana and the Glen Lyn Plant in Virginia. The closures would affect 250 workers.

Coal plants are the target of several new pollution rules being implemented or proposed by the EPA.

One of these regulations includes the Clean Power Plan, which is at the center of President Obama's climate change agenda to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the existing fleet of power plants. Many scientists say these emissions are causing the Earth's climate to warm, resulting in extreme weather, droughts and flooding.

[Malsua]

I had to look up the Muskingum river plant, thinking it might be a rename of the plant at Conesville, just outside of Coshocton. My mom has lived in that area since the late 80s so not only am I very familiar with the area, I lived there from 90-92.

The Conesville power plant runs on coal and from my understanding is/was one of the dirtiest coal plants in the country and I figured it was already closed...hence why I had to look and see if it had been re-badged as the Muskingdom River plant. The Conesville plant is also right next to the Muskingum river, but up towards where it starts when the Tuscarawas and Walhonding rivers meet.

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Admin Asserts Dominion Over Creeks, Streams, Wetlands, Ditches — Even Big Puddles

May 27, 2015

President Obama’s administration on Wednesday claimed dominion over all of America’s streams, creeks, rills, ditches, brooks, rivulets, burns, tributaries, criks, wetlands — perhaps even puddles — in a sweeping move to assert unilateral federal authority.

The Environmental Protection Agency, along with the Army Corps of Engineers, says it has the authority to control all waterways within the United States — and will exercise that authority.

“We’re finalizing a clean water rule to protect the streams and the wetlands that one in three Americans rely on for drinking water. And we’re doing that without creating any new permitting requirements and maintaining all previous exemptions and exclusions,” EPA head Gina McCarthy told reporters Wednesday.

The moves comes as part of the Clean Water Act and federal officials say they are simply trying to help businesses comply with regulations.

“This rule is about clarification, and in fact, we’re adding exclusions for features like artificial lakes and ponds, water-filled depressions from constructions and grass swales,” McCarthy said. “This rule will make it easier to identify protected waters and will make those protections consistent with the law as well as the latest peer-reviewed science. This rule is based on science.”

The Supreme Court has twice questioned the breadth of powers decreed under the Clean Water Act, prompting Wednesday’s actions.
McCarthy claimed the new powers would “not interfere with private property rights or address land use.”

“It does not regulate any ditches unless they function as tributaries. It does not apply to groundwater or shallow subsurface water, copper tile drains or change policy on irrigation or water transfer.”

Not surprisingly, Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, THE top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, loves the plan.

“The Obama administration listened to all perspectives and developed a final rule that will help guarantee safe drinking water supplies for American families and businesses and restore much-needed certainty, consistency, and effectiveness to the Clean Water Act,” she said in a statement.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise said:

“EPA’s attempt to redefine ‘navigable waterways’ to include every drainage ditch, backyard pond, and puddle is a radical regulatory overreach that threatens to take away the rights of property owners and will lead to costly litigation and lost jobs. The House is committed to fighting back against this radical policy, which is why we passed bipartisan legislation earlier this month to stop the EPA in their tracks from moving forward with this misguided proposal. It’s time for President Obama’s EPA to abandon these radical proposals, all in the name of protecting wetlands and waterways, that instead will only lead to more American jobs being shipped overseas at the expense of the American economy.”

[Ryan Ruck]

Obama Announces New Rule Limiting Water Pollution

May 27, 2015

President Obama on Wednesday announced a sweeping new clean water regulation meant to restore the federal government’s authority to limit pollution in the nation’s rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands.

The rule, which would apply to about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water, comes as part of a broader effort by Mr. Obama to use his executive authority to build a major environmental legacy, without requiring new legislation from the Republican-controlled Congress.

But it also opened up a broad new front for attacks from business interests like farmers, property developers, fertilizer and pesticide makers, oil and gas producers and golf course owners, who contend that the rule would stifle economic growth and intrude on property owners’ rights.

Industry groups, including the American Farm Bureau and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, are already preparing lawsuits to challenge the rule, and legal experts say the battle over control of the nation’s waters could end up before the Supreme Court, which in recent years has cast doubt on the government’s authority to regulate certain waterways.

Republicans in Congress point to the rule as another example of what they call executive overreach by the Obama administration. This summer, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency is expected to release a final set of regulations intended to counter climate change by limiting greenhouse gas pollution from power plants.

Already, Republican lawmakers are advancing legislation on Capitol Hill meant to block or delay both the climate and clean water rules.

In announcing the rule, Mr. Obama said, “One in three Americans now gets drinking water from streams lacking clear protection, and businesses and industries that depend on clean water face uncertainty and delay, which costs our economy every day. Too many of our waters have been left vulnerable to pollution.”

“With today’s rule,” he added, “we take another step towards protecting the waters that belong to all of us.”

Speaker John A. Boehner, Republican of Ohio, called the rule “a raw and tyrannical power grab that will crush jobs,” adding, “House members of both parties have joined more than 30 governors and government leaders” to reject the rule.

The E.P.A. and the Army Corps of Engineers jointly proposed the rule, known as Waters of the United States, last spring. The agency has held more than 400 meetings about it with outside groups and read more than one million public comments as it wrote the final language.

The rule is being issued under the 1972 Clean Water Act, which gave the federal government broad authority to limit pollution in major water bodies, like Chesapeake Bay, the Mississippi River and Puget Sound, as well as streams and wetlands that drain into those larger waters.

But two Supreme Court decisions related to clean water protection, in 2001 and in 2006, created legal confusion about whether the federal government had the authority to regulate the smaller streams and headwaters, and about other water sources such as wetlands.

Advertisement
Continue reading the main story

E.P.A. officials say the new rule will clarify that authority, allowing the government to once again limit pollution in those smaller bodies of water — although it does not restore the full scope of regulatory authority granted by the 1972 law.

The E.P.A. also contends that the new rule will not give it the authority to regulate additional waters that had not been covered under the 1972 law.

“For the water in the rivers and lakes in our communities that flow to our drinking water to be clean, the streams and wetlands that feed them need to be clean too,” the E.P.A. administrator, Gina McCarthy, said in a written statement.

“Today’s rule marks the beginning of a new era in the history of the Clean Water Act,” said Jo-Ellen Darcy, assistant secretary for the Army Corps of Engineers, which co-wrote the rule.

“This rule responds to the public’s demand for greater clarity, consistency and predictability when making jurisdictional determinations,” she added.

Environmentalists praised the rule, calling it an important step that would lead to significantly cleaner natural bodies of water and healthier drinking water.

“Our rivers, lakes and drinking water can only be clean if the streams that flow into them are protected,” said Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America. “That’s why today’s action is the biggest victory for clean water in a decade.”

A coalition of industry groups, led by the American Farm Bureau Federation, has waged an aggressive campaign calling on the E.P.A. to withdraw or revamp the rule.

Farmers fear that the rule could impose major new costs and burdens, requiring them to pay fees for environmental assessments and to obtain permits just to till the soil near gullies, ditches or dry streambeds where water flows only when it rains. A permit is required for any activity, like farming or construction, that creates a discharge into a body of water covered under the Clean Water Act or affects the health of it, like filling in a wetland or blocking a stream.

“It’s going to cause a nightmare for farmers,” said Don Parrish, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

“Our members own the majority of the landscape that’s going to be impacted by this,” he said. “It’s going to make their land, the most valuable thing they possess, less valuable. It could reduce the value of some farmland by as much as 40 percent.”

Industry groups also warned that enforcement of the new rule would create a profusion of lawsuits and other legal red tape. If property owners fail to apply for permits to build, till, develop or perform other potentially polluting activities near water bodies, they can be sued by the E.P.A. Environmental advocates and even private citizens will also be able to bring lawsuits against landowners who might be in violation of the regulations.

The lobbying fight over the rule has generated a public relations battle on social media.

In its protest, the American Farm Bureau Federation started a social media campaign, using the Twitter hashtag #DitchTheRule, to urge farmers and others to push the E.P.A. to abandon or revamp the rule. The E.P.A., in response, created a campaign with the hashtag #DitchTheMyth, urging people to speak out in favor of it. But some legal experts say that campaign might have tested the limits of federal lobbying laws, which prohibit a government agency from engaging in grass-roots lobbying for proposed policies or legislation.

On Tuesday, Republican lawmakers from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and House Science, Agriculture and Oversight committees sent letters to Ms. McCarthy demanding that the E.P.A. turn over documents relating to the development of the social media campaign.

[Ryan Ruck]

EPA Seeks To Prohibit Conversion Of Vehicles Into Racecars

February 8, 2016

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed a regulation to prohibit conversion of vehicles originally designed for on-road use into racecars. The regulation would also make the sale of certain products for use on such vehicles illegal. The proposed regulation was contained within a non-related proposed regulation entitled “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles—Phase 2.”

The regulation would impact all vehicle types, including the sports cars, sedans and hatch-backs commonly converted strictly for use at the track. While the Clean Air Act prohibits certain modifications to motor vehicles, it is clear that vehicles built or modified for racing, and not used on the streets, are not the “motor vehicles” that Congress intended to regulate.

“This proposed regulation represents overreaching by the agency, runs contrary to the law and defies decades of racing activity where EPA has acknowledged and allowed conversion of vehicles,” said SEMA President and CEO Chris Kersting. “Congress did not intend the original Clean Air Act to extend to vehicles modified for racing and has re-enforced that intent on more than one occasion.”

SEMA submitted comments in opposition to the regulation and met with the EPA to confirm the agency’s intentions. The EPA indicated that the regulation would prohibit conversion of vehicles into racecars and make the sale of certain emissions-related parts for use on converted vehicles illegal. Working with other affected organizations, including those representing legions of professional and hobbyist racers and fans, SEMA will continue to oppose the regulation through the administrative process and will seek congressional support and judicial intervention as necessary.

The EPA has indicated it expects to publish final regulations by July 2016.

[Malsua]

I'm quite sure the EPA will want to ban any and all performance parts unless authorized by a manufacturer and have green certifications.

This EPA is completely out of control.