Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

EPA Tag

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 10, 2016 21 Comments
We are in the midst of a campaign to strip Bill Cosby's name from buildings and other forms of public recognition because of allegations he sexually abused multiple women decades ago. Cosby has not been convicted of a single one of those charges. But that has not stopped action against Cosby in the public sphere. For example, Buzzfeed reported in September 2015, Bill Cosby’s Name Removed From Historically Black University In Ohio:
Central State University, a historically black college in Wilberforce, Ohio, announced Friday it is permanently removing Bill Cosby’s name from a building following the multiple allegations of sexual assault made against the comedian. According to the Associated Press, the school put a temporary cover over the name of the Camille O. & William H. Cosby Communications Center building in July, but in the coming weeks the letters will be removed entirely and replaced with “SCU Communications Center.” The building was named after the comedian when his family donated over $2 million to the school.
Time magazine has compiled a list:

Posted by Leslie Eastman on January 03, 2016 9 Comments
The EPA has been hit with a veritable flood of scandals recently. We covered the Animas River spill, caused by the EPA's rush to solve a non-problem involving a mine's wastewater, which impacted the water quality for several Western states. In 2013, one climate change expert who posed as a CIA operative was jailed for conning the agency out of nearly $1 Million.
The Environmental Protection Agency's top climate change expert and highest paid employee was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison today for defrauding the government. John C. Beale, who lives with his wife in Virginia, claimed he was a CIA agent working in Pakistan so he didn't have to show up for work for months at a time and defrauded the government out of more than $900,000....

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on October 24, 2015 13 Comments
Back in 2008, Obama suggested that it would be necessary to bankrupt the coal industry in his efforts to establish "green" energy alternatives—he wanted to "take coal off the table as an ideological matter." Here's the clip: The Daily Caller has a partial transcript of the above interview:
In 2008, Obama said his energy policies would “bankrupt” anyone who wants to build a coal plant. “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” Obama said during a 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board.

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on October 10, 2015 8 Comments
In May, we covered the EPA's Waters of the United States rule and just how far-reaching it is, and in August, the EPA decided that a federal injunction imposed in response to a suit filed by thirteen states didn't apply nationally, stating that it applied only to those states that were parties in the case.  The EPA declared it would move forward with imposing the rule on the remaining fifty states. Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court handed down its own ruling that blocked the waters rule nationwide.  The Hill reports:
In a 2-1 ruling, the Cincinnati-based Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered a stinging defeat to Obama’s most ambitious effort to keep streams and wetlands clean, saying it looks likely that the rule, dubbed Waters of the United States, is illegal. “We conclude that petitioners have demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of their claims,” the judges wrote in their decision, explaining that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new guidelines for determining whether water is subject to federal control — based mostly on the water’s distance and connection to larger water bodies — is “at odds” with a key Supreme Court ruling.

Posted by Kemberlee Kaye on October 07, 2015 32 Comments
Tuesday, Senator Cruz chaired a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts titled “Opportunity Denied: How Overregulation Harms Minorities” that investigated the harmful effects of government overregulation on people and businesses who lack the resources and political connections to deal effectively with mountains of red tape. According to his office, Cruz invited Harry Alford, president and CEO, National Black Chamber of Commerce; Michael Barrera, national economic prosperity manager, The LIBRE Institute; Sabina Loving, owner and operator, Loving Tax Services, Inc.; and Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation. Their testimony focused on the harmful effects of government overregulation on the African-American and Hispanic communities and on the experience of small businesses within these communities. Democrat witnesses included Aaron Mair, president of the Sierra Club; Amit Narang, regulation policy advocate at Public Citizen; and William Scott, CEO of Tristatz, LLC. “Fifty-five years ago, there were 13 regulatory federal government agencies. Today, there are over 70," said Senator Cruz. This is where Cruz shines his brightest. Questioning Sierra Club President Aaron Mair, Senator Cruz challenged Mair to name one instance harmful government regulation:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on September 29, 2015 29 Comments
When I saw this tweet earlier today (via @JWBritton), I was like WUT!? Spoof account? Nope, verified. True blue EPA: https://twitter.com/EPA/status/648969378852151297 The link in the tweet goes to a page that doesn't exist.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on September 03, 2015 17 Comments
President Obama has been busy this week, renaming the nation's highest peak from Mt. McKinley to the traditional Alaskan name, Denali (meaning high one...which seems a clever way for Obama to actually name the place after himself with nobody being the wiser). Because Alaska doesn't have many golf courses, he has been working hard, too. Obama has been staring down glaciers to fight climate change and giving millions of taxpayer dollars away in specialty commissions to aid in this epic battle.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on August 30, 2015 27 Comments
I recently reported that EPA regulations that were poised to go into effect at the end of last week, broadening the scope of the agency's power under the "Waters of the United States" Act. A federal judge has blocked its implementation hours before it was due to take effect:
Yesterday, a federal district court in North Dakota granted a preliminary injunction blocking implementation of a new Environmental Protection Agency rule defining “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. This rule is important because many of the CWA’s regulatory prohibitions, including the prohibition on developing wetlands without a federal permit, apply only in “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The Supreme Court rebuked the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers for applying an unduly expansive WOTUS definition (see SWANCC v. U.S. Army Corps and Rapanos v. United States), and this rule is an effort to reassert and clarify the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction under the CWA.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on August 25, 2015 8 Comments
Earlier this year, I reported that a Washington D.C. attorney discovered ingrained collusion amongst top level staff in the office of former Oregon governor John Kitzhaber to “spread climate coordination and collaboration to a larger group of governors across the U.S." Investigators have continued to follow the email trail, which has uncovered connections between the EPA regulatory drive and a billionaire, "green jobs" activist:
The White House, statehouses, and nonprofits backed by the billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer worked behind the scenes to create a state-level advocacy network to support controversial new Environmental Protection Agency regulations, newly released emails reveal. Involved in the strategy was a top aide to John Kitzhaber, the former Democratic governor of Oregon, according to emails obtained by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute. Kitzhaber resigned this year in the midst of a scandal involving his fiancée.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on August 19, 2015 29 Comments
The leak of taxpayer dollars from Washington, D.C. continues unabated with reports that the EPA is investigating itself for the Animas River spill.
The inspector general for the Environmental Protection Agency is investigating the cause of a massive spill from an abandoned Colorado gold mine that unleashed 3 million gallons of contaminated wastewater into rivers that supply water to at least three states. The inspector general's office said the investigation also will focus on the EPA's response to the Aug. 5 spill from the defunct Gold King Mine near Silverton, Colo.
I suspect that the results will be similar to those achieved for these gems of federal investigations, which we have all come to enjoy during the Obama Administration!
  • Fast and Furious:  After dramatic investigations, the only fallout was that Attorney General Eric Holder became the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in contempt of Congress.  It didn't seem to phase him much.

Posted by Leslie Eastman on August 13, 2015 27 Comments
News related to the Animas River spill continues to stream from Colorado, including the discovery that a warning that a spill of wastewater was likely if EPA's plans to drain the mines went forward as planned had been issued a week earlier. The Silverton Standard published an eerie prediction made by professional geologist Dave Taylor detailing a sequence of events that could lead to environmental catastrophe on July 30, 2015. The editorial included the assertion that the EPA was poised to launch a "Superfund Blitzkrieg". Gateway Pundit has a copy of the full letter; a summary of the key points I would like to cover is below:
...Based on my 47 years of experience as a professional geologist, it appears to be that the EPA is setting your town and the area up for a potential Superfund blitzkrieg. ...[M]ake no mistake, within seven to 150 days all of the 500 gpm flow will return to Cement Creek. Contamination may actually increase due to disturbance and flushing action within the workings. The "grand experiment" in my opinion will fail. And guess what [EPA representative] Mr. Hestmark will say then? Gee "Plan A" didn't work so I guess that we will have to build a treatment plant at a cost to taxpayers of $100 million to $500 million (who knows). Reading between the lines, I believe that the EPA's plan all along. The proposed Red & Bonita plugging plan has been their way of getting a foot in the door to justify their hidden agenda for construction of a treatment plant. After all, with a budget of $8.2 billion and 17,000 employees, the EPA needs new, big projects to keep them in existence."

Posted by Leslie Eastman on August 12, 2015 40 Comments
It's too bad that when Obama promised to lower the ocean levels he also failed say something about America's rivers. The news related to the release of acidic wastewater laden with heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, lead) continues to flow from Colorado, and it stinks. For example, it turns out the Environmental Protection Agency substantially underestimated the size of the spill in its initial reports. The U.S. Geological Survey assessed the actual amount to be closer to 3 million gallons, compared with the initial EPA estimate of 1 million. The flow of contamination is has hit Utah, and New Mexico is declaring a state of emergency:
As of Monday evening, officials said the plume of contamination was southeast of Montezuma Creek, Utah, and was headed for Lake Powell. Environmental Protection Agency officials say the pollutants in the plume include arsenic, lead, copper, aluminum and cadmium, but have not released any detailed information on the spill that started Wednesday morning and has since been contained.

Posted by Amy Miller on August 03, 2015 23 Comments
Today President Obama will announce a new set of regulations aimed at salvaging his legacy as a progressive visionary cutting carbon emissions from US power plants and pushing the country toward a focus on renewable energy. The plan is a tweaked---and much stricter---version of the Clean Power Plan, which was unveiled last year. More from WaPo:
The new plan sets a goal of cutting carbon pollution from power plants by 32 percent by the year 2030, compared with 2005 levels — a 9 percent jump from the previous target of 30 percent — while rewarding states and utility companies that move quickly to expand their investment in solar and wind power. Many states will face tougher requirements for lowering greenhouse-gas emissions under the revised plan. But state governments also will be given more time to meet their targets and considerably more flexibility in how they achieve their pollution-cutting goals, according to two senior officials knowledgeable about the rule. For the first time, the officials said, the plan also includes a “reliability safety valve” that can buy states additional time if needed to avoid disruptions in the power supply.

Posted by Mike LaChance on July 17, 2015 14 Comments
EPA Chief Gina McCarthy recently testified before Congress; when questioned by Chairman Lamar Smith over ineffective regulations that raise the cost of energy and thereby punish low income Americans, she admitted the regulations would have virtually no impact on climate. All that effort, basically for nothing. Transcript and video via Marc Morano of the Climate Depot (emphasis added):
CHAIRMAN LAMAR SMITH: “On the Clean Power Plan, former Obama Administration Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell said at best it will reduce global temperature by only one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius. At the same time it’s going to increase the cost of electricity. That’s going to hurt the lowest income Americans the most. How do you justify such an expensive, burdensome, onerous rule that’s really not going to do much good and isn’t this all pain and no gain. ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “No sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis you would see it’s enormously beneficial. CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?” ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect…”

Posted by Fuzzy Slippers on July 12, 2015 14 Comments
The Obama EPA's "Waters of the U. S." power grab has come under a lot of scrutiny and resistance, and rightly so. In addition to citizen outrage and push back from Congress, the EPA is now facing two lawsuits filed by the Attorneys General of 16 states. Rod Kackley reports:
Texas and 15 other states filed suit to block the new “navigable waters” rule as soon as it was published. The EPA legal eagles have not one lawsuit to worry about, but two. Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi have filed suit in Houston. Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming have filed suit in a separate case to have the rule overturned. “The EPA’s new water rule is not about clean water — it’s about power,” Paxton said. “This sweeping new rule is a blatant overstep of federal authority and could have a devastating effect on virtually any property owner, from farmers to ranchers to small businesses.” Paxton said the rule violates the U.S. Constitution, federal law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and places costly burdens on landowners in Texas.

Posted by Amy Miller on July 06, 2015 12 Comments
Earlier this month, the EPA lost big when the Supreme Court ruled that the agency had erred during implementation of new regulations governing coal-fired power plants. That blow came on the heels of Congressional action against the EPA's new "Waters of the United States" rule, which opponents rightly argue amounts to little more than a power grab legitimized under the trappings of "environmentalism." It's an agency under fire; and while it may not be teetering on the verge of total self-destruction, evidence released today suggests that the EPA may be more nervous than they'd like to admit about maintaining a hold on private enterprise. E-mails obtained from the EPA via a FOIA request submitted by the Environment & Energy (E&E) Legal Institute show that agency officials used talking points provided by a left-wing special interest group to sway prominent journalists covering controversial new power plant regulations. From Lachlan Markay at the Washington Free Beacon:

Posted by Jay Caruso on June 30, 2015 23 Comments
The Supreme Court ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency 5-4 this week, saying the EPA erred in not considering costs when implementing new regulations governing toxic emissions from coal-fired power plants:
The 5-4 decision Monday went against an Environmental Protection Agency mercury rule that forces utilities to shutter old coal plants or invest billions of dollars in equipment to clean up the emissions from their smokestacks. The court said the EPA should have considered the costs and benefits before deciding whether to impose those limits on the toxic emissions. “The agency must consider cost -— including, most importantly, cost of compliance -— before deciding whether regulation is appropriate and necessary,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion. “Reasonable regulation ordinarily requires paying attention to the advantages and the disadvantages of agency decisions.”
Ironically, the rule could stay on the books while the EPA performs the analysis:
The decision to send the regulation back to a lower court to decide what happens next leaves open the possibility that the 2011 rule, called the mercury and air toxics regulation, could be left on the books while the agency does the analysis that the high court said it should have done long ago. It could take a few months for that lower-court decision.
Despite the victory, it may have come at a cost that is too late to recover. The rule went into place several years ago and the impact has taken its toll:
Accessibility by WAH