EPA Announces New Rules to Cut Methane Emissions
At a remarkable pace, EPA is issuing costly new rules adding more uncertainty and limiting U.S. industrial growth. Just this week, EPA has now proposed rules targeting methane emissions in the oil and gas industry.
To be clear, a huge share of economic growth in the U.S. since the recession has been the result of the shale energy revolution. The jobs generated in this sector and indirectly through growth in manufacturing pay 2-3 times the private sector average wage. Does it make sense for EPA to inject more uncertainty and cost burdens? Read more here.
111(d) Updated August 26,2015
The EPA has released the final rule for its so-called Clean Power Plan. Undoubtedly, the plan will limit the use of domestic energy resources and cause power rates to significantly increase. Even though renewable sources are already on the rise, the rule will compel power utilities to either build or buy more expensive, unnecessary wind or solar generated power while raising the price of natural gas and coal generation. In brief, the plan very creatively compels states to develop cap-and-trade schemes, the same schemes that brought public outrage in 2009 when the issue was debated in Congress. See what the Institute for Energy Research says here.
Related: The Clarion-Ledger featured Ron Aldridge, Mississippi state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, and Sierra Club’s Louie Miller in their Point-Counterpoint series concerning the impact of the EPA’s proposed Clean Power plan. Read it here.
EPA Case Decision Will Hopefully Set a Precedent
“By EPA’s logic, someone could decide whether it is “appropriate” to buy a Ferrari without thinking about cost, because he plans to think about cost later when deciding whether to upgrade the sound system.”
– Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
The Supreme Court’s decision to halt the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule in the Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency case is a sign of rational thinking when it comes to the overreach of the EPA.
The Court shared in their opinion that the implementation of such a rule is not appropriate as it would impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits. With this decision, the Court has made it clear that the EPA must consider cost when it comes to rule-making.
Steve Wilson writes on how the Court’s decision could help Mississippi in the long term. Read his piece here.
The Economic Impact of the Clean Power Plan
Kevin D. Dayaratna, Senior Statistician and Research Programmer with the Heritage Foundation, testified before the Committee on Science, Space and Technology on the costly economic impact of 111(d). Dayaratna provides in-depth information charting out the national employment and GDP ramifications if the EPA has its way. See that information here.
The National Black Chamber of Commerce Says 111(D) Rule Will Hurt Minorities
National Black Chamber of Commerce President & CEO and former MEI Governor’s Energy Summit speaker, Harry Alford, shared his thoughts on how the Clean Power Plan will hurt America’s minority families and businesses. Read his thoughts here