Federal Assclowns Fine Energy Company For Lowering Costs And Improving The Environment

What Happened When One Company Lowered Its Costs and Improved The Environment? Government Fines. – Daily Signal


Here’s how the federal government rewards an energy company for upgrading its power plants to lower costs for families and businesses and improving the environment: slap them with a nearly a million dollar fine, force them to close power plant units and lay off employees and make them millions of dollars in environmental mitigation projects.

If that sounds backwards to you, well it is.

In a lawsuit that lasted 15 years, Duke Energy and the Environmental Protection agency (EPA) reached a settlement where Duke “will pay a civil penalty of $975,000, shut down a coal-fired power plant and invest $4.4 million on environmental mitigation projects.”

The EPA and Department of Justice brought the suit against Duke Energy in 2000 arguing that the company failed to comply with the Clean Air Act when the company modified 13 coal-fired units in North Carolina.

At issue is the New Source Review (NSR), one of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. Power plants must meet certain air quality standards, and companies must follow Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules to demonstrate that the construction and operation of new projects and major modifications will not increase emissions above a specified threshold.

Therefore, if a company wants to make plant modifications that improves the power plant’s efficiency, it will trigger New Source Review and the EPA will regulate the plant to meet the most recent emissions standards.

However, what constitutes a significant modification is subjective under the rules. The amendment excludes routine maintenance, repair, and replacement, but what falls under the definition of significant modification remains murky, despite multiple administrative attempts to clarify the meaning. The lack of clarification also forces companies into years, if not decades, of litigation over NSR violations. Such is the most recent case with Duke Energy.

Companies could be allocating resources to invest in new equipment and provide jobs that benefit energy consumers, but instead have to waste resources fighting ridiculously long and unnecessary lawsuits. Even though companies argue in court they complied with the law, the result will be a settlement where the federal government hands down millions of dollars in fines, and forces the closure of power plants, killing jobs in the process.

New Source Review is a cost to both the economy and the environment. Plant upgrades can improve efficiency and reduce operational costs, thereby lowering electricity costs for families and businesses, increasing reliability, and providing environmental benefits.

Nevertheless, because those upgrades trigger a New Source Review, the policy discourages new investment and keeps power plants operating less efficiently than they otherwise would.

Although increasing the efficiency of a plant will likely cause it to run longer and consequently cause the plant’s emissions to rise, NSR does not account for the emission reduction that would occur if a less efficient plant reduced its hours of operation to compensate for increases in operation of a more efficient plant.

That is why Congress should repeal New Source Review.

New Source Review is a bureaucratic mess that prevents plants from operating at optimal efficiency. Power plants are already clean because companies equip them with sophisticated, state-of-the-art pollution prevention technology to ensure safe operations no matter how long the power plant runs.

Repealing NSR would not be a free pass for companies to pollute but instead allow them to improve plant efficiency, reduce emissions and also increase power generation to meet U.S. energy needs.



Then the EPA came for your mud puddles……………

The next president and Congress have to turn back the tide of regulation

The Wall Street Journal reported, via Instapundit:

The Clean Water Act limits the federal government to regulating the “navigable waters of the United States” like the Colorado River or Lake Michigan. In 1986 the EPA expanded that definition to seize jurisdiction over tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Now it is extending federal control over just about any creek, pond, prairie pothole or muddy farm field that EPA says has a “significant nexus” to a navigable waterway.

The agency defines waters as “significant” if they are “located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark,” or, alternatively, within the 100-year floodplain and 1,500 feet of the high water mark of waters already under the government’s jurisdiction. That’s already a lot of water, but there’s more.

The EPA acknowledges that the “science available today does not establish that waters beyond those defined as ‘adjacent’” to these “significant” waters should be regulated. But forget science. The agency says its “experience and expertise” show there are “many” other waters that could have a significant downstream effect. Thus the EPA establishes an additional standard for significance that covers just about anything that’s wet.

Australia to UN: take your climate tax and stick it!

God bless them!

FEDERAL cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week’s global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference.

Love this story


Did I ever mention I can speak Liberalese?

Liberalese being the native tongue of Libs, Leftists, Progressives, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, etc. Not only can I speak this strange and intellectually vacuous language, but I can also translate Liberalese to actual English. I do this as a public service, because I care about truth. Take this piece that Weasel Zippers found

Via CNS News:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted a video on its website to provide the definition of environmental justice, specifically when it comes to communities.

“The health of a community suffers when people don’t have access to healthy homes, healthy food, transportation, fresh air and safe neighborhoods,” the narrator stated in the video.

She is Dr. LaToria Whitehead, who works in CDC’s Healthy Homes and Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch.

“I’m also an environmental justice specialist,” Whitehead said.

The video opened with a closed grocery store as a backdrop, with Whitehead informing viewers that the part of Atlanta where the video was filmed has double the rate of poverty as the national average and that 28 percent of residents don’t have their own transportation.

“When the supermarket behind me closed it had a big impact on the community’s ability to get healthy food,” Whitehead said. “This is one example about how environmental justice doesn’t live here.”

“Environmental Justice. What does it mean?” the headline on the video read.

“Environmental justice means that everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment regardless of race, income, gender or nationality,” Whitehead said.

First of all, most of this is pure and simple fertilizer, or BS  if you prefer. Focus on the last paragraphs

“Environmental Justice. What does it mean?” the headline on the video read.

“Environmental justice means that everyone has the right to live in a healthy environment regardless of race, income, gender or nationality,” Whitehead said.

So what are they REALLY saying? Well, they are saying that “environmental Justice” gives Big Brother or Big Government the right to dictate what you drive, how much energy you use, force you to recycle and to redistribute wealth, and trample your liberty in order to gain more control and power over you!

See how easy that is

Study: Electric Cars More Harmful To Environment Than Gasoline-Powered Cars

Study: Electric Vars No Greener Than Gasoline Vehicles – UPI

Electric cars, despite their supposed green credentials, are among the environmentally dirtiest transportation options, a U.S. researcher suggests.


Writing in the journal IEEE Spectrum, researcher Ozzie Zehner says electric cars lead to hidden environmental and health damages and are likely more harmful than gasoline cars and other transportation options.

Electric cars merely shift negative impacts from one place to another, he wrote, and “most electric-car assessments analyze only the charging of the car. This is an important factor indeed. But a more rigorous analysis would consider the environmental impacts over the vehicle’s entire life cycle, from its construction through its operation and on to its eventual retirement at the junkyard.”

Political priorities and corporate influence have created a flawed impression that electric cars significantly reduce transportation impacts, he said.

“Upon closer consideration, moving from petroleum-fueled vehicles to electric cars starts to appear tantamount to shifting from one brand of cigarettes to another,” Zehner, a visiting scholar at the University of California, Berkeley, said.

Zehner, once an electric car enthusiast who has since changed his position and become an activist looking at a number of so-called green initiatives, is the author of the book “Green Illusions.”

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Oh Good Freaking Grief! Less ice = Climate Change, and More ice = Climate Change

The latest from the Al Gore Church Cult of Climate Change Via Pirates Cove

One of the bad parts about having a heavy interest in the whole anthropogenic global warming debate, what Warmists call “climate change” in order to blame everything on Mankind, is that it is often like being in an airport full of Hari Krishna’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Occupiers who just won’t stop their insanity (which might not be fair to the first two) (via Tom Nelson)

Increased Ice-Formation in Antarctic Sea Caused by Climate Change: Study

The records of melting ice in September 2012 showed that ice is disappearing at an unprecedented rate in Arctic sea. But on the other side, a record high of ice formation has been recorded in Antarctic sea.

After such results, scientists want to know that if nature is playing an equivalent game negating all the speculations that global warming is due to human intervention.

And the recent studies done in this regard shows that the answer to this speculation is `no’ and suggests that human activities are mainly responsible for the change in weather throughout the globe which includes lessening of ice in one ocean and thickening in other. The records of the ice formation on Antarctic sea reveals that the summer melt of land ice on Antarctic Peninsula have increased 10 times in last 600 years which is highest level in last 1000 years.

In related news, there were thunderstorms here tonight. Apparently, thunderstorms have NEVER EVER occurred before and right wing bloggers or “climate change deniers” if you prefer, are to blame. Yes, that is sarcasm, and no it is not too far removed from the BS the Left spews.


Just imagine if George W. Bush had said this

Just close your eyes and imagine

Via Slate:

[A]s usual, and in keeping with the high-minded tone of his speech, there were few policy specifics. (The Washington Post’s Brad Plumer has  a good rundown of what might be feasible in the president’s second term.) What was interesting was how he framed the issue: not just as one of responsibility to future generations, but as one of responsibility to God. Here’s what he said:

“We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity. We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it. We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries — we must claim its promise. That is how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways; our croplands and snowcapped peaks. That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God. That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.”

If Bush, or any Republican had said that, the Leftists heads would be exploding. Odd how they do not mind when a fellow Leftist mentions God.