Advertising

 

 


 

 

Press Releases

 

Entries in Regulatory Actions (499)

Monday
Apr292013

CEI Today: Life of Julius video, GOP v Margaret Thatcher, and Calif. chemical regulation 



Meet Julius: How Unions Hurt The Average Worker

Julius is an African American man living in modern-day America. Julius is a fictitious character, but the problems he faces are real problems that real people face every day. He wants the American Dream. He wants prosperity and opportunity. He wants his kids to have a better life than he did. When he retires, he wants to know that his years of hard work have meant some level of comfort in his old age.


In other words, Julius wants what all of us want. Unfortunately, his economic hopes are continually frustrated in ways both large and small, both obvious and subtle, by a powerful force: labor unions.

Please come see Julius’s story at WorkplaceChoice.org, and share with your friends and family. After all — you are Julius. And so are we all. > View the video

 

GOP vs MARGARET THATCHER - MATTHEW MELCHIORRE & RYAN YOUNG

American Spectator: Republicans Dishonor Thatcher

 

Margaret Thatcher got entrepreneurialism. Why won’t the GOP?


Margaret Thatcher’s passing led many around the world to reflect on her legacy. In the United Kingdom, reactions ranged from fond remembrances by supporters to street protests by detractors. In America, Republicans have lionized her, highlighting her strong ideological bond with Ronald Reagan. But today’s GOP seems to have strayed very far from the Reagan-Thatcher vision. This is especially true in the fields of financial and fiscal policy.  > Read the full commentary

> Interview an expert

BPA CHEMICAL RISK - ANGELA LOGOMASINI

Openmarket.org: Why BPA (And Other Chemicals) Don’t Belong On Proposition 65

If you want to have fun in California’s Disneyland, avoid reading the warning signs saying that products used in the park may give you cancer and reproductive problems! They’re not just a buzz kill, they are plain dumb and misinformed. But it’s state law that they be there.

California’s nonsensical Proposition 65 law directs regulators to place chemicals on a “toxic” substances list, and then forces companies to issue warning labels when they use these substances to make consumer products and food. But regulators list chemicals for myriad stupid reasons.

  > Read more

> Interview Angela Logomasini

 

CEI ANNUAL DINNER & GALA

FEATURING

THE HONORABLE RAND PAUL


JUNE 20, 2013

 


cei.org/ceidinner

 

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

Saturday
Apr272013

Cooler Heads Digest 26 April 2013 

26 April 2013

In the News

The Climate Circus Leaves Town
Steven Hayward, Weekly Standard, 26 April 2013

Debunking the Gasland Sequel
Steve Everley, Energy in Depth, 25 April 2013

Fisker = Solyndra
Ronald Bailey, Hit & Run, 24 April 2013

Obama Administration Missed Clues on Fisker
Matthew Daly, AP, 24 April 2013

Reform the Wind PTC in 2013!
Lisa Linowes, Master Resource, 24 April 2013

Boxer’s Claims on Behalf of EPA Nominee Don’t Hold Water
Brian McNicoll, Daily Caller, 23 April 2013

Explaining Energy Gridlock
Marlo Lewis, National Journal, 22 April 2013

Dysfunction Rampant at Energy Department
Paul Chesser, National Legal & Policy Center, 22 April 2013

Europe Is Becoming a Green Energy Basket Case
Washington Post editorial, 21 April 2013

News You Can Use
Is Tesla Next?

Fisker Automotive, a luxury electric car manufacturer that benefited from almost $200 million in stimulus benefits, is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Meanwhile, informed opinion on Wall Street predicts a similar fate for Tesla Motors, another luxury electric car manufacturer that benefited from almost $460 million in stimulus benefits. According to CNN, more than 40% of the company's available shares were being held by investors who are betting the stock will go down.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

D.C. Circuit Backs EPA's War on Coal (Although There Is a Silver Lining)

The federal D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals this week overturned a lower court decision that the Environmental Protection Agency could not use its veto over Clean Water Act dredge and fill permits retroactively after the Army Corps of Engineers had issued the permit. This means that the EPA acted legally in yanking the permit of Arch Coal’s Spruce Number One surface coal mine in Logan County, West Virginia, several years after the investment was made and the mine started producing coal.

“The unambiguous language of subsection 404(c) manifests the Congress’s intent to confer on EPA a broad veto power extending beyond the permit issuance,” wrote Appeals Judge Karen Henderson. The two other judges on the panel, Brett Kavanaugh and Thomas Griffith, agreed with Henderson’s opinion. 

If upheld on further appeal, this means that investing in surface mining projects will be a gamble. Hundreds of millions of dollars could be lost if the EPA decides that it doesn’t like the looks of someone and cancels the permit years after it has been issued. West Virginia's congressional delegation have introduced a bill, H. R. 524, to prohibit retroactive vetoes of section 404 permits.

William Yeatman, my CEI colleague, noted in a press release that the Appeals Court sent the case back to the federal district court to determine whether the EPA's scientific case for vetoing the permit was sound.  According to William, "When all the hyperbole is stripped away, EPA’s only ‘evidence’ to justify its actions is a putative threat posed by saline effluent from the mine to an order of short-lived insects, which aren’t even an endangered species. This is plainly unreasonable: EPA shouldn’t be trading jobs for bugs absent a Congressional mandate to do so." See William's 2011 study that shows why the EPA's science is shoddy here.

EPA Critiques State Department on Keystone XL

The Environmental Protection Agency this week filed a lengthy comment on the State Department's draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the long-delayed Keystone XL Pipeline. The EPA challenges the SEIS, which finds no major environmental problems, as being based on "insufficient information in regard to alternative routes, additional greenhouse gas emissions, and the impacts of spills.” 

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline would carry oil from Alberta's oil sands and North Dakota's Bakken field to refineries on the Gulf Coast. The pipeline requires a presidential permit because it crosses the international boundary with Canada. President Barack Obama has denied issuing the permit twice on specious grounds. The new application addresses the President's objections.

The EPA's official comments are largely repeated in stronger terms in many public comments filed by opponents of the pipeline. The EPA's comments do not constitute a formal objection. That could come later, which would mean that the SEIS had become an inter-agency dispute. Such disputes under the National Environmental Policy Act are resolved by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.  At the end of the day, President Obama will make the decision. EPA's intervention gives him grounds to once again deny the Keystone permit.

Across the States
William Yeatman

Green Mandate Freeze Fails in North Carolina

By a 13-18 vote, the North Carolina House Public Utilities and Energy committee voted down SB 298, legislation that would have prevented the state’s green energy mandate increase from 3% to 12% of electricity sales. The bill had previously been passed out of the House Commerce and Job Development Subcommittee on Energy and Emerging Markets. Although North Carolina’s renewable energy mandate is small relative to similar production quotas in 28 other states, professional environmentalists and the green energy lobby reacted strongly in opposition to the bill, out of fear that it would engender a domino effect leading to the repeal of green energy mandates in other states.

L.A.’s Decision To Kick Coal Will Cost Ratepayers Big Time

During the 2000-2001 electricity crisis in California, Los Angelinos were spared the energy price spike that afflicted other Californians because the city-owned utility received almost 40% of its power from coal. This arrangement changed last month, when the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the city-run utility, succumbed to a long-term campaign waged by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to divest from coal. This week, the L.A. City Council added teeth to the utility’s announcement, by approving a plan to pay for a fuel switch from coal to gas at a 600 megawatt power plant in Utah with which the utility has a contract to purchase power. The City Council passed the measure unanimously (12 to 0) despite a warning from a ratepayer advocate, employed by the city, that the switch would carry a $500 capital cost, and an additional $150 million in added fuel costs.

Around the World
William Yeatman

Japan Turns To Coal, Because It’s Cheaper

Among the many harmful impacts of the Fukushima Daitchi disaster was the loss of almost 4,500 megawatts of nuclear-powered electricity generation. This is the equivalent of almost 9 average-sized power plants, and it represented a significant strain to the nation’s electricity grid. Initially, Japan relied on imported oil and gas to make up the difference in electricity generation, but this proved to be exorbitantly expensive. As a result, the country is turning to coal. Tokyo Electric, the largest state-regulated electric utility in Japan, recently added 26,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation. And earlier in the month, the utility negotiated unusually aggressively in securing a historically low price on coal imported from Australia. Finally, Japan's environmental regulators this month announced that they would accelerate permitting for new coal-fired power plants from 3 years (on average) to 1 year.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

Tuesday
Apr232013

CEI - Supreme Court Asked to Review EPA “Endangerment ” Regs

CEI, Southeastern Legal Foundation, Lawmakers Seek Supreme Court Review of EPA “Endangerment” Regs

EPA Greenhouse Gas Regulations “Most Expensive Regulatory Program in History”

Washington, D.C., April 23, 2013 – In a lawsuit challenging over-reaching greenhouse gas regulations, the Competitive Enterprise Institute joined the Southeastern Legal Foundation, a host of lawmakers and several companies in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that upheld EPA.

The case involves a 2009 finding by President Obama’s EPA that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health under the terms of the Clean Air Act. Based on that finding, EPA has promulgated massive regulations restricting CO2 for new motor vehicles and countless types of businesses.

EPA’s actions were challenged in court on the grounds they were unauthorized by statute and that EPA’s scientific assessments were arbitrary and capricious, especially in light of the Climategate revelations, email conversations disclosed in late 2009 that raised new questions and doubts about the scientific basis for those actions. But last June, a D.C. Circuit panel ruled in the agency’s favor, relying in large part on the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in  Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007. That case held that greenhouse gases fall within regulatory purview of the Clean Air Act.  The panel also deferred to EPA’s treatment of global warming science. In December, the full circuit ruled against rehearing the case en banc, but two judges issued powerful dissents from that decision.”

“This most massive regulatory regime in American history deserves the highest level of judicial scrutiny. We hope it receives it,” said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel.

The petition asks the Supreme Court to consider whether EPA can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act when doing so requires a regulatory regime so huge that the agency itself must rewrite the underlying law. The petition also seeks review of the lower court’s perfunctory upholding of EPA’s “science,” given the admitted uncertainty and lack of independent agency judgment that went into it.

See also:

Southeastern Legal Foundation v. EPA

EPA Issues Global Warming ‘Endangerment’ Finding

Free Market Coalition Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson on EPA’s Endangerment Finding

Saturday
Apr202013

Cooler Heads Digest 19 April 2013 

19 April 2013

In the News

Reps. Upton and Waxman Issue 2nd White Paper on Renewable Fuel Standard
Marlo Lewis, GlobalWarming.org, 19 April 2013

Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) Should Walk the Plank
Iain Murray & H. Sterling Burnett, Master Resource, 19 April 2013

The Climate Horror Picture Show
Patrick Michaels, RealClearPolitics, 19 April 2013

With Science Unsettled, a Carbon Tax Is Even More Useless
Nicolas Loris, The Foundry, 18 April 2013

Keystone Driving Big Labor’s Green Schism Wider
Sean Higgins, Washington Examiner, 16 April 2013

Peak Bloom Is Here—DC’s Global Warming Canary Lands with Front on Its Feet
Adam Sandberg, GlobalWarming.org, 14 April 2013

Stubbed Toe? Blame Global Warming
Walter Russell Mead, Via Media, 14 April 2013

Margaret Thatcher: On Two of the Great Issues, the Lady Was Indeed for Turning
Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 13 April 2013

The Electric Car’s Short Circuit
Bjorn Lomborg, Project Syndicate, 11 April 2013

News You Can Use
Electric Vehicles = Money Pits

Fisker Automotive, an electric car manufacturer that received $211 million in stimulus subsidies, this week filed for bankruptcy. A Fisker electric car cost $103,000, but the company spent $660,000 for each one it sold, according to Bloomberg. Chrysler CEI Sergei Marchionne told the Detroit Free Press that losing $557,000 on every case it sold would be “masochism to the extreme.” He then said that his company is only losing $10,000 on every battery powered Fiat 500 it sells. Presumably, Chrysler makes it up on volume.

Inside the Beltway
Myron Ebell

President Obama’s Budget Proposes to Make Wind and Solar Subsidies Permanent

President Barack Obama submitted his proposed Fiscal Year 2014 budget to Congress on 10th April, 66 days after the legal deadline.  The law does not subject the President to any penalties for missing the 4th February deadline, but no previous President has submitted his proposed budget more than a few days late.  The budget proposes to increase federal spending by nearly five percent over the current fiscal year.

Subsidies for renewable energy and energy efficiency total $23 billion over ten years.  Astonishingly, the President proposes to make wind, solar, and geothermal subsidies permanent.  According to a White House fact sheet: “To provide a strong, consistent incentive to encourage investments in renewable energy technologies and to help meet our goal to double generation from wind, solar, and geothermal sources by 2020, the Budget would make permanent the tax credit for the production of renewable electricity.  The Budget makes the Production Tax Credit refundable so new, growing firms can benefit and provide renewable electricity generation.”

For decades, the leaders in the wind and solar industries have told Congress that they just need a few more years of subsidies before they become competitive with energy produced from conventional sources.  Last December, during the debate over whether to extend the wind subsidy for another year, the American Wind Energy Association came forward with a plan to phase out the subsidy over six years. The Obama Administration has concluded that wind and solar will never become competitive with coal and natural gas.

EPW Republicans Set Five Markers for McCarthy Confirmation as EPA Administrator

Senator David Vitter (R-La.), ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, sent a letter on 16th April to Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency, that re-iterates five requests for information that the agency has withheld from the committee or commitments to increase transparency in the future. The letter, which was signed by all eight Republican members of the committee, in effect sets down a marker for McCarthy’s confirmation as EPA Administrator by the Senate.  If McCarthy fails to satisfy the five requests, then the Republicans on the committee will have good reason to vote against her confirmation.

Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said this week that the committee could vote as early next week on McCarthy’s nomination.  That now seems unlikely.  It’s more likely that the committee will vote soon after the Senate returns from a week-long recess on 6th May.

The letter states, “…[W]hile you acknowledged serious problems with EPA’s transparency record, acknowledgement does not equal action.  We want to hold you to your word and ensure that EPA will be fully transparent on the science, economics, and negotiations related to EPA decisions and rulemaking.  For too long, EPA has failed to deliver on the promises of transparency espoused by President Barack Obama, former Administrator Lisa Jackson, and by you.”

The first request is that McCarthy commits the EPA to issue new guidance requiring that all official business be conducted through official e-mail accounts.  The second is that McCarthy turn over to the committee unredacted private e-mails that were used to conduct official business.  These two requests arise out of the “Richard Windsor” scandal.

The third request is the whopper.  EPW Committee Republicans ask McCarthy to turn over the underlying data used to promulgate Clean Air Act rules.  Specifically: “That the EPA release a full set of data files for the American Cancer Society Study; the Harvard Six Cities Study; HEI/Krewski et al. 2009; Laden et al. 2006; Lepeule 2012; and Jerrett 2009.”  Congress has been trying to get this sort of data since the late 1990s, when Carol Browner was EPA Administrator.  McCarthy herself agreed to turn over data underlying major Clean Air Act rules in 2011, but has since refused to do so.  It is widely believed that if the data in the studies can be re-analyzed by objective experts, it will show that the health claims for reductions in particulate matter have been wildly exaggerated by the EPA.      

The fourth request is that the EPA commits in writing to do economy-wide cost-benefit analyses for all future Clean Air Act  rules, as is required by executive order and by the act.  The EPA typically only looks at benefits to one section of the economy, such as the number of new jobs that will be created by a regulation, and ignores much larger job losses and other negative effects in other sections of the economy.  The fifth request is that the EPA publishes on its web site all petitions for rulemaking, promulgations of new guidance, and notices of intent to sue. In addition, the eight Republicans request that the EPA also make public and give thirty days notice when it enters into negotiations to settle a citizen lawsuit.  This will allow interested parties to intervene before the EPA is able to do one of its notorious “sue-and-settle” deals. 

The complete text of the letter may be found here.  

Across the States
William Yeatman

States Ask SCOTUS to Take Up Climate Case

Twelve States (Texas, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota) today filed a petition to have the Supreme Court review the D.C. Circuit’s decision not to strike down EPA’s climate regulations. The States argue that the Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The Clean Air Act was designed in 1970, in order to fight smog. The law’s tools and mechanisms are totally inappropriate for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, which are much more prevalent than the pollutants that cause smog. The States allege that EPA has overstepped its legal authority as the Agency tries to square the circle of fighting global warming with a law that was written at a time when people were scared of global cooling.

Around the World
William Yeatman

EU Cap-and-Trade Again Downed, This Time for the Count

The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme, a cap-and-trade energy rationing program with participation from all 27 EU Member States, collapsed again this week, after the European Parliament refused a lifeline to the beleaguered policy. Due to the economic downturn, the price of carbon rationing coupons traded in the Emissions Trading Scheme had plummeted from $39 in 2008 to $3 this month. At that level, industrial suppliers and consumers of energy had no incentive to reduce emissions. In order to defibrillate the carbon market, the European Commission had presented a plan to the European Parliament to “backload” carbon permits. In practice, this meant discontinuing auctions of carbon rationing coupons, so as to reduce their supply and increase their price. However, this measure failed in the European Parliament, by a 334 to 315 vote. According to news reports, German industry was especially influential in securing the measure’s defeat.

This is the second time that the Emissions Trading Scheme has failed. During its first phase, the over allocation of carbon rationing coupons led to windfall profits for utilities, but no actual emissions reductions, as the carbon price plummeted.

Greens are terribly upset. Comments to EUractiv by Doug Parr, Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, are indicative of what professional environmentalists in European are now saying: “They [the EU] have lost all credibility on climate leadership.” The Emissions Trading Scheme is such a disaster that leading environmental pressure groups in Europe actually came out in favor of abolishing it in the days before the vote.

The Cooler Heads Digest is the weekly e-mail publication of the Cooler Heads Coalition. For the latest news and commentary, check out the Coalition’s website, www.GlobalWarming.org.

Tuesday
Apr162013

CEI Today: Ecuador/Chevron, principles for immigration reform, and the week in regulation 

ECUADOR V. CHEVRON - IAIN MURRAY & GEOFFREY McLATCHEY


American Spectator: Another Correa Problem, In Ecuador we have Big Green vs. Big Oil in a pitifully unfair fight

The Ecuadorian President is backed by an international green lobby, including a group of aggressive trial lawyers, determined to see Chevron pay. Now the plaintiffs’ lawyers are seeking a jurisdiction likely to rule in their favor — something which an arbitration panel in The Hague has deemed an unfair practice. But even if they succeed in their quest, their real trouble is the facts in front of them. > Read more


> Interview Iain Murray & Geoffrey McLatchey

IMMIGRATION REFORM - DAVID BIER


Openmarket.org: Seven Principles Of Free Market Immigration Reform

  1. Immigration laws should value human beings.
  2. Immigration reform should reflect market realities.
  3. The rule of law should be upheld.
  4. Laws should be reformed to encourage legal immigration and discourage the illegal kind.
  5. Laws should not deputize citizens as enforcers.
  6. Laws should create sustainable systems, not just one time exceptions.
  7. Laws should respect families.
    [click to continue…]

> Interview David Bier

 

CEI’s Battered Business Bureau: The Week In Regulation

Highlights from final rules published last week:

 > Read more

> Interview Ryan Young

 

 

 

CEI ANNUAL DINNER & GALA

FEATURING

THE HONORABLE RAND PAUL


JUNE 20, 2013

 

cei.org/ceidinner

 

CEI is a non-profit, non-partisan public policy group dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government.  For more information about CEI, please visit our website, cei.org, and blogs, Globalwarming.org and OpenMarket.org.  Follow CEI on Twitter! Twitter.com/ceidotorg.

Page 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 100 Next 5 Entries »