EPA Failed to give Texas Adequate Notice on New Rules

There is one sentence that tells it all about this overreach again by the EPA and the real reason behind the ruling IMHO is to go after Texas and other oil and gas producing states:

Like so many other regulations from the EPA, this rule will cut Texas jobs, cut Texas economic growth, increase Texas energy costs and harm Texas energy security. 

Texas and Oklahoma have had nothing but trouble with the EPA for years over their rules that keep tightening and tightening to the stage it hurts jobs and the ability to provide energy for the Country.  Time and time again the EPA has had our states in Court.  If there is one very good reason that Governor Rick Perry needs to run for President, it is to clip the wings of the EPA and their overreaching rules aimed at destroying the economies of oil producing states which also happen to be red states.  Doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is payback by Obama and his Administration because Perry has stood up the federal government and this President.

You read this new initiative by the EPA who failed to give adequate notice to Texas, and it sums up this Administration where Obama wants to be a dictator not a President.  This EPA and other agencies of the Obama Administration continue to avoid following rules that conflict with their agenda.  They know Obama will protect their decisions to ignore the rules and laws in place if it means going after Texas and other red states who dared vote against him in 2008 and still oppose his policies.

Now we have the details on what the EPA is now up to against Texas:

EPA decision will cost Texas jobs
Agency failed to give state adequate notice
By BRYAN W. SHAWTEXAS COMMISSION on ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYJuly 11, 2011, 10:06PM 

Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency released the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. This is another rule in an endless line of new federal regulations, all with the stated purpose of improving air quality. Like so many other regulations from the EPA, this rule will cut Texas jobs, cut Texas economic growth, increase Texas energy costs and harm Texas energy security. 

Most alarming is the EPA's conscious curtailment of the due process rights of Texas and its citizens by failing to provide proper notice and thus the opportunity to provide meaningful comments on the rule. The EPA claims Texas was given proper notice, but we maintain that a lone sentence in a 256-page proposed rule can hardly be considered adequate notice. While the TCEQ was proactive and submitted comments on the new rule, those comments cannot be considered meaningful. Why? Because the EPA did not provide Texas with proposed emission budgets, time frames, etc., that were provided to every other state included in the proposed rule. 

Nor did the EPA contact Texas officials to alert them to Texas' inclusion in the final rule. 

To add insult to injury, Texas power plant emissions did not significantly contribute to downwind particulate matter pollution, based on the modeling in support of the EPA's proposal. In other words, Texas did not cross the EPA "contribution threshold" and therefore should be excluded from the rule. But in the final rule, the EPA's revised modeling now links Texas emissions to Madison County, Ill. — quite a distance. And in another questionable decision, the EPA is issuing a supplemental proposal to take comment on the inclusion of six additional states found to significantly contribute to downwind ozone in the same post-proposal modeling. But Texas was not afforded that same opportunity. 

The disparate treatment of Texas is troubling and flies in the face of proper notice and comment. The EPA's late decision to add Texas in the particulate matter portion of the rule and lack of transparency in this decision brings to question the validity of the science used and whether federally mandated sulfur dioxide reductions in Texas are necessary for public health protection. 

This rule will impose great costs on coal-fired power plants, causing some to shut down or curtail operations, threatening the state's electrical capacity reserve margins needed to avoid power disruption during times of peak demand. Such a scenario could lead to blackouts, which create serious health risks to Texans dependent upon reliable energy. Despite EPA assurances, it is difficult to see how other sources of energy — natural gas-fired plants, solar or wind energy — can compensate for these shutdowns, given the rule's January 2012 compliance date. If power plants are forced to shut down or curtail operations, Texans and the Texas economy will suffer. 

For many Texans, increased energy costs and increased consumer costs merely mean further tightening of already-tight budgets. But for fixed- and low-income populations, the prospect of hot Texas summers and skyrocketing electric bills is frightening. And particularly for the elderly, this may mean threats to their health with an increased incidence of heat stroke and heat stress. 

Like so many of the EPA's proposed rules — extreme tightening of ozone limits, global warming control schemes, attempts to nullify Texas' very successful flexible permitting program — this rule seems not so much intended to improve the environment as to impose unnecessary, expensive federal controls on industry and increase the costs of energy to consumers. And increased energy costs also increase the price of nearly everything consumers purchase. It seems even more peculiar to impose these higher costs on Americans during a lingering recession. 

The EPA has once again gone beyond its mission by re-creating its own science. As with the pending new ozone standard, the EPA has supposedly "proven" that protective levels of any emission simply do not exist. Under this administration, the only acceptable emission limit of any pollutant is zero. This philosophy is in direct contrast to a healthy environment, healthy economy and sound science. 

Shaw is chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Read more:  Houston Chronicle 

When Obama looks back and asks why Governor Perry is getting in the race for President, he need look no farther than in the mirror and at the agencies under him like the EPA who have overreached into the states.  Where the Federal Government should be involved in protecting our borders, Obama sends desk troops so now the Governor has sent DPS to the Texas border with the helicopters to assist the Border Patrol to stop the drug cartels from bringing their violence to Texas.  

Obama has failed in so many areas but one big one is taking on domestic oil and gas in favor of foreign oil (except Canada) and trying to tank the economies of some of our states.   There is a pipeline ready to be built but that the agreement still sits on Hillary Clinton's desk and has from day one.  Since it crosses the Canadian border on the way to OK and TX, it needs her approval.  EPA is against it so Clinton's lets it sit with no repercussions from Obama who could care less.  It would provide up to 100,000 jobs but seeing OK and TX not get something to help our economies and oil and gas seems to be more important to this Administration.

Obama State of the Union Fallout

With snow coming down this morning to add to the rain that froze on objects, freezing rain that froze on the sidewalk, and sleet that accumulated like snow on roads and temperatures now below freezing, it is a very good day to stay inside and read the fallout from the State of the Union Obama gave on Wednesday night.

One thing went right -- teleprompters did not fail and he was able to read his entire speech which liberal media members gave high marks. Do they know what he said? Probably not but for an hour Chris Matthews, MSNBC, forgot he was black whatever that means. Who cares about the color of a Obama's skin? It is Obama's agenda that matter to us.

The American Thinker summed by the SOTU given by Obama versus the Rebuttal given by Governor Bob McDonnell of the Commonwealth of Virginia better then any one:

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnel, 01/27/10

January 29, 2010
Obama's sucker punch; McDonnell's knock out punchScott Strzelczyk

Obama ridiculed the justices in a nationally televised speech much to the joy and amusement of Congressional Democrats. Their boisterous standing applause is equally demeaning as Obama's statement.

The President's speech lasted 70 minutes and, to me, sounded just like everything else he says. A friend summed it up nicely by saying "history reference.... bumper sticker quote.... anecdotal story from a swing state about health care.... contemplative pause and look at the horizon.... overstate the obvious with mock sincerity.... blame Bush.... bumper sticker quote....stump speech excerpt.... knowing nod.... reinvent the wheel.... exaggerate accomplishments.... false promise.... blame Bush... repeat.... repeat.... repeat."

Contrast Obama's speech with Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell's speech. McDonnell's speech was brief, concise, and delivered with the proper tone and authority we expect from a leader. He summarized the challenges we face; unemployment, intrusive federal government, and the 12 trillion dollar debt. He discussed solutions to the issues. He eloquently quoted Thomas Jefferson, referenced scripture, and stated our founding fathers pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to create our country. And, he was able to communicate this succinctly and without any ambiguity in a mere 15 minutes.

Obama threw a sucker punch last night. McDonnell delivered a knockout punch.

Excerpt: Read More at American Thinker

Michael Barone's article this morning had us chuckling as he decided to wait to write his article after seeing if the media covered certain parts of the Obama SOTU. His fresh perspective after some members of the fawning media fell all over Obama was well worth the wait.

Inside Obama's State of the Union speech
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
01/28/10 3:32 PM EST

I know I’m weighing in late—in the old days of journalism this would have been early!—but I want to make a few points about Barack Obama’s State of the Union speech which I haven’t seen elsewhere.

Bows to labor unions. In saluting the resilience of the American people, Obama specifically mentioned people “building cars and teaching kids”—both heavily unionized occupations. (snip)

Where is the “jobs bill”? Obama’s jobs proposals look like pretty small beer. He also called for a National Export Initiative to double exports in five years; just how that would be done he didn’t say (snip) And, as Ira Stoll has pointed out, a five-year program has unfortunate echoes of Stalin’s five-year plans.

He kept boosting the House over the Senate. He commended the House for passing a “jobs bill,” for passing “financial reform,” for passing “a comprehensive energy and climate bill” (no mention of cap-and-trade) and for passing a community colleges bill. (snip)

And at least one senator took umbrage. “I thought he was pointing his finger at the Senate a lot in his speech last night,” said Senator Mary Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana. “No, I do not think it’s fair.” Obama needs all the Senate votes he can get, especially from moderate Democrats like Landrieu, and he went out of his way to antagonize them, in search of cheap applause.

The Christmas bomber. Obama seemed to acknowledge the government’s failure to anticipate the Christmas bomber. (snip) Translation into English: 50 minutes of interrogation of a captured terrorist by FBI agents who happened to be on duty Christmas Day in Michigan, and who have no knowledge of terrorism networks, is enough. How many Americans agree?

Bones to the left. Obama’s brief discussion of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran was carefully framed to be consistent with his dovish campaign rhetoric on those subjects. (snip)

Possible reset I: energy. Obama did not signal a pivot to the center, as the Massachusetts result seemed to dictate, on many issues. But he did call for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country” (his pal Bill Ayers’s father, as CEO of Commonwealth Edison, built lots of nuclear plants in Illinois that haven’t blown up), for “tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas” (after reinstating the ban on offshore drilling lifted by the Bush administration) and for “continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies” (after his vice president said on the 2008 campaign trail that we wouldn’t build any more coal-fired power plants).

Possible reset II: trade. “We will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets” and “will strengthen our trade relations with Asia and with key partners like South Korea, Panama and Colombia.” This sounds like a call for the Democratic Congress to approve the pending Free Trade Agreements with those three countries which labor unions and most Democrats have opposed.

Health care. Obama seemed not to change his stand on health care at all, though it’s obvious that the Democratic bills are not going anywhere. (snip)

Immigration. Supporters of comprehensive immigration reform hoped that Obama, having downplayed the issue in 2009, would raise it in 2010. He did, but only barely, in a single sentence. “And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system—to secure our borders, enforce our laws and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and our nation.”

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

Because Oklahoma, Texas, and Louisiana are heavily involved in the production of oil and natural gas, residents of those states took particular interest in the SOTU speech when Obama threw out some positive initiatives on energy. The drawback is that although it sounded good, he already knew some of the initiatives were going to be blocked by either regulations already on the books or by the Democrat leadership in Congress.

Over the years the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has gained way too much power to rule and regulate which has been hurting our domestic energy oil and gas production for years. We need new and updated refineries but how are you going to get new ones built and on-line with the EPA regulations causing the cost to be build new refineries prohibitive. The US is pretty much at capacity for oil refining yet the EPA is always looking for new ways to hurt domestic oil and gas production. Why? Is it because the vast majority of oil and gas production takes place in Red States? It does make you wonder.

We do have more hope for new nuclear power plants for electricity. We were glad to see President Obama talk about nuclear power plants following up on the initiatives started under the Bush Administration in 2002 after almost three decades of no new power plants. Chances of getting new nuclear plants is much higher then off shore drilling but they also take longer to get up and running. Will Obama carry through to push nuclear energy or will this fall by the wayside like so much of his rhetoric. Only time will tell.

According to the US Dept of Energy, the last reactor built was the "River Bend" plant in Louisiana. Its construction began in March of 1977. The last plant to begin commercial operation is the "Watts Bar" plant in Tennessee, which came online in 1996.

There are nuclear power plants already approved by the State of Florida but will not be operational until 2016 or later. The catch for the Florida residents is they will be helping pay for these plants long before they are finished at the rate of around 4 percent a year. Florida power plants have not received Federal approval to date as applications for design and construction of nuclear power plants have to be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of the Department of Energy.

There are currently 16 applications 'Under Review' with two more including one from Florida anticipated as of Feb 2009 with the next release of data in May 2010. Data on the pending nuclear power plants can be found at US Energy Information Administration

In 2002, the Department of Energy in cooperative projects with industry asked the NRC approval for three sites which were approved in FY 2007/2008. One additional application is currently under review as of FY 2009; three more are expected in the FY 2010-2012 time frame. These submittals were for new advanced nuclear power plant designs as part of the cooperative projects.

Design certification for Construction and Operation License (COL)for the initial demonstration projects is expected in early-2011 and construction started 2-3 years after that. The Department of Energy under the Bush Administration instituted the COL as a means of shortening the length of time it takes to get through the process for approval and certification by combining the two applications for Construction and Operation into one.

You can read more on Nuclear Energy at Nuclear Power 2010 from the DOE

While looking through the email, this editorial by Mark Tapscott from the Washington Examiner jumped out as the perfect headline review of the Obama speech -- 'nothing for everybody' which has summed up Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail and while in office.

A speech with nothing for everybody
Examiner Editorial
January 29, 2010

That was some performance Wednesday night by President Obama, delivering one of the longest-ever State of the Union addresses but offering no evidence whatsoever of a willingness to listen to the swelling nationwide chorus of voices of discontent with his policies. For example, rather than acknowledging that clear majorities of Americans have decisively rejected his signature health care reform plan and suggesting a different approach, Obama doubled down on his insistence that Congress approve his proposal to put federal bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. Thus, Obama's congressional supporters get nothing on which to try to build a credible health care compromise, and his congressional critics come away with nothing beyond vague rhetoric about working together.

For those worried about the 17 percent real unemployment rate (10 percent officially unemployed, plus 7 percent who have given up looking for work), Obama put forward lots of reassuring words about jobs and small business, but only warmed-over ideas from the past as concrete proposals. (snip)

Similarly, why should anybody think the "new jobs bill" Obama asked Congress to put on his desk promptly will work any better than last year's $787 billion economic stimulus program that he said would keep unemployment at or below 8 percent? (snip)

Then there is the Obama freeze on federal spending, which has been praised in this space as a needed first step. The problem, however, is that it is all but invisible, saving a mere $250 billion or so when Washington will spend $4 trillion or more every year. Worse, the freeze does nothing to restrain entitlement spending, the chief factor in the government's swelling annual deficits. (snip)

Excerpt: Read more at the Washington Examiner

We will be watching closely to see if what Obama promised in his SOTU will ever become reality or will it be more hollow rhetoric like his campaign and first year in office. One thing is certain from his SOTU speech -- he gave no cover to Democrats running for office in 2010 as he continues his assault on the American healthcare system with Obamacare which the majority of Americans don't want.