Recently in EPA Power Grab Category

Washington, DC - (Sep. 24) announced today that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been sued in federal court for conducting illegal life- and health-threatening scientific experiments on human subjects.

Based on information uncovered by publisher and public health consultant Steve Milloy through the Freedom of Information Act, the nonprofit American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center (ATI) sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Among other things, the lawsuit asks for:

EPA to be barred from conducting illegal life-and health-threatening experiments;
a formal investigation of EPA's human experiments; and for
regulations based on the illegal experiments to be suspended pending an investigation.

"EPA has broken every law and violated every standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments for the protection of human subjects in scientific experiments," said Milloy. "That EPA administrator Lisa Jackson permitted this heinous experimentation to occur under her watch shocks the conscience," Milloy added.

Read more here.

By Anthony Watts,

Amidst Obama's inexorable war on American energy, consumers, jobs, and prosperity, his EPA is in the process of promulgating 4 new pollution rules that will bury the coal industry and "necessarily" raise the price of electricity on American households. They are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Utilities (MACT), the Cooling Water Intake Structures regulation, and the Disposal of Coal Combustion residuals. The former two have already been finalized while the latter two are close behind. Today, the D.C. Circuit Court struck down the EPA's authority to implement the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

In August 2011, Obama's EPA imposed a cap and trade style program to expand existing limitations on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in 28 "upwind" states. They claimed that they had unlimited authority pursuant to the Clean Air Act to cap emissions that supposedly travel across state lines. The EPA admitted that the rule would cost $2.7 billion from the private sector and force many cole-fired power plants to shut down. Priorities USA might have even run an ad against Obama claiming that his superfluous regulations cause workers to lose their health insurance and die.

Read the rest of the story here.


Regional chief submits resignation, boasting of 'integrity, hard work'

The regional Environmental Protection Agency executive who told an audience his "philosophy of enforcement" was to "crucify" and "make examples of" energy companies has quit.

It a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson over the weekend, Al Armendariz, the former top environmental official in the South and Southwest Region, said he regretted the comments but boasted of his "integrity and hard work."

"As I have expressed publicly, and to you directly, I regret comments I made several years ago that do not in any way reflect my work as regional administrator," he wrote. "As importantly, they do not represent the work you have overseen as EPA administrator."

He continued, "I take great pride in having built a career based on integrity and hard work. These are the principles that guide me personally as well. While I feel there is much work that remains to be done for the people of this country in the region that I serve, after a great deal of thought and careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that my continued service will distract you and the agency from its important work."

Read the rest of the article here.

By Ron Paul,

"I wonder when the Department of Labor will forbid parents from requiring children to make their beds, clean their rooms, or set the table for dinner." - Ron Paul


LAKE JACKSON, Texas - Congressman and 2012 Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul issued the following statement regarding the Department of Labor's new regulations applying child labor laws to family farms.

Below find comments from Congressman Paul:

"The Department of Labor's plan to issue new regulations applying child labor laws to family farms is an outrageous assault on America's farmers. My parents were dairy farmers who required me and my brothers to help out on the farm. I certainly benefited from this experience, and, as a Representative of a congressional district containing a large number of farmers, I have had the opportunity to meet many farmers who learned about their profession by doing chores on their parents' farms. Working on a family farm also provides a tremendous opportunity to form a strong work ethic that these children will carry through the rest of their lives.

"Thanks to the Obama Administration, future generations of children will be deprived of these experiences.

By Paul Conner, The Daily Caller

Under pressure from farming advocates in rural communities, and following a report by The Daily Caller, the Obama administration withdrew a proposed rule Thursday that would have applied child labor laws to family farms.

Critics complained that the regulation would have drastically changed the extent to which children could work on farms owned by family members. The U.S. Department of Labor cited public outcry as the reason for withdrawing the rule.

"The decision to withdraw this rule -- including provisions to define the 'parental exemption' -- was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms," the Department said in a press release Thursday evening. "To be clear, this regulation will not be pursued for the duration of the Obama administration."

Read the rest of the article here.

By Kevin DeAnna, WorldNetDaily


Sen. James Inhofe is calling for an investigation into a top Environmental Protection Agency administrator who confessed that his "philosophy of enforcement" was to "crucify" and "make examples of" energy companies.

And an author of a book on such behavior, Eco-Tyranny: How the Left's Green Agenda will Dismantle America," says it's just too much.

Region VI Administrator Al Armendariz has apologized for his remarks, but meteorologist and author Brian Sussman points out that this is only the surface of a much deeper problem with the federal bureaucracy.

In an exclusive interview with WND, Sussman asked, "Would the EPA official have apologized for his contemptuous crucifixion declaration if he had not been caught on tape? Of course not. His statement is a perfect representation of eco-tyranny."

In his explosive new book of that title, Sussman details how what he calls "green authoritarianism" was inevitable from the beginning. He explains that Richard Nixon, who "wanted to be liked," according to one of his well-known former advisers, created the Environmental Protection Agency as an olive branch to the hard left. As Sussman jokes, "Needless to say, it was not returned."

Read the rest of the article here.

The EPA Wrecking Ball

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

By Alan Caruba,

The Environmental Protection Agency is using its power to advance the objective of the environmental movement to deny Americans access to the energy that sustains the nation's economy and is using the greatest hoax ever perpetrated, global warming--now called "climate change"--to achieve that goal.

"This standard isn't the once-and-for-all solution to our environmental challenge," said Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, "but it is an important commonsense step toward tackling the ongoing and very real threat of climate change and protecting the future for generations to come. It will enhance the lives of our children and our children's children."

This is a boldfaced lie. Its newest rule is based on the debasement of science that is characterized and embodied in the global warming hoax. It will deprive America of the energy it requires to function.

Since the 1980s the Greens have been telling everyone that carbon dioxide was causing global warming--now called climate change--and warning that CO2 emissions were going to kill everyone in the world if they weren't dramatically reduced. The ball was put in motion with the United Nations 1997 Kyoto Protocols when many nations agreed to this absurd idea and carried forward by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ever since.

Read the rest of the article here.

The United States of EPA

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Here's one good way to consider the vote in 2012: It's about whether to re-elect President Lisa Jackson, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which these days runs most the U.S. economy.

The EPA heaved its weight against another industry this month, issuing a regulation to sharply increase fuel economy. Under this new rule, America's fleet of passenger cars and light trucks will have to meet an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, a doubling of today's average of about 27 mpg. By the EPA's estimate the rule will cost $157 billion, meaning the real number is vastly greater.

The fuel-economy rule is classic Obama EPA. Until this Administration, fuel standards were the remit of Congress, via its Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. In 2007, the legislative branch raised those standards with a bill requiring the U.S. fleet to hit 35 miles per gallon by 2020, a 40% increase. The industry is struggling to keep pace with those steep requirements.

President Jackson is now casting aside 35 years of Congressional prerogative. Because the Obama EPA has declared carbon dioxide a "pollutant," and because cars emit CO2, Ms. Jackson is citing the Clean Air Act in her bid to commandeer Detroit. While the EPA officially worked with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Nhtsa, the agency previously in charge of efficiency standards), it's clear the EPA is calling the shots.

At least when Nhtsa was overseeing efficiency, it was charged by Congress with taking into account vehicle safety and a rule's effect on the economy and consumer demand. The EPA can't be bothered with such detail.

Read the rest of the article here.

Matthew Boyle, The Daily Caller

The Environmental Protection Agency has said new greenhouse gas regulations, as proposed, may be "absurd" in application and "impossible to administer" by its self-imposed 2016 deadline. But the agency is still asking for taxpayers to shoulder the burden of up to 230,000 new bureaucrats -- at a cost of $21 billion -- to attempt to implement the rules.

The EPA aims to regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the Clean Air Act, even though the law doesn't give the EPA explicit power to do so. The agency's authority to move forward is being challenged in court by petitioners who argue that such a decision should be left for Congress to make.

The proposed regulations would set greenhouse gas emission thresholds above which businesses must file for an EPA permit and complete extra paperwork in order to continue operating. If the EPA wins its court battle and fully rolls out the greenhouse gas regulations, the number of businesses forced into this regulatory regime would grow tremendously -- from approximately 14,000 now to as many as 6.1 million.

These new regulatory efforts are not likely to succeed, the EPA admits, but it has decided to move forward regardless. "While EPA acknowledges that come 2016, the administrative burdens may still be so great that compliance ... may still be absurd or impossible to administer at that time, that does not mean that the Agency is not moving toward the statutory thresholds," the EPA wrote in a September 16 court briefing.

Read the rest of the article here.

EPA's Power Grab Push

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

by Brian McGraw,

Shell announced today, for now, it must end a project to drill for oil off the coast of Northern Alaska, because of a decision made by an EPA appeals board to deny permits to acknowledge that Shell will meet air quality requirements. This is not part of ANWR.

Companies that drill for oil must go through extensive permitting processes and invest billions of dollars as payments for leasing the land, exploring for possible oil fields, equipment, etc. This is all done with the understanding that assuming they follow the letter of the law, there is a chance that this investment won't be flushed down the toilet at the end of the tunnel. It appears that in this case Shell has followed procedure and that emissions will be below any standards required by the EPA:

The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.

"What the modeling showed was in communities like Kaktovik, Shell's drilling would increase air pollution levels close to air quality standards," said Eric Grafe, Earthjustice's lead attorney on the case. Earthjustice was joined by Center for Biological Diversity and the Alaska Wilderness League in challenging the air permits.

Talk about moving the goalposts. They must have been really desperate to cancel this project given that this was the best straight-faced excuse they could muster. Not only do you have to be below the legally required emission limits but you must also not even be "close" to the limits, as defined by unelected officials, one of whom is a former attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund.

Events like this are a prime example of why many in Congress want to strip authority from the EPA. Shell had reportedly invested over $4 billion in this project. When companies make investment decisions, consideration is given to whether or not bureaucrats can make arbitrary decisions to shut the project down halfway through a multi-year process. There are many other countries with natural resource reserves who do not subject economic activity to such unpredictable insanity, and in the eye of a corporation, after an event like this these locations begin to look more preferable to dealing with the United States.

USA Today

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared ready to rule that federal judges cannot set limits on greenhouse gas emissions, after a majority of justices suggested Tuesday that such disputes over global warming are better left to Congress and federal regulators.

Five power companies, including American Electric Power, are appealing a lower court decision that would permit a group of six states and the city of New York to sue under federal "public nuisance" law and claim the plants' emissions intensify global warming.

During a spirited session of oral arguments, the justices voiced doubt that judges have the authority or expertise to handle the complex emissions dilemma that is international in scope and that the government says is being addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. A ruling would determine whether states can seek remedies in court for harm caused by carbon dioxide emissions and whether utilities would be subject to new litigation and possible caps on emissions.

"Asking a court to set standards for emissions," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, "sounds like the kind of thing that EPA does. Congress set up the EPA to promulgate standards for emissions."

"How does a district judge decide what is reasonable and cost-effective?" Justice Samuel Alito asked. "This is not a situation in which the emission of greenhouse gases can be totally prohibited."

Rest of the article.

EPA bureaucrat tap dances during testimony

Post by Ryan Maue,

EPA Deputy Administrator Mathy Stanislaus should be given credit for showing up Thursday to an Environment and Energy subcommittee hearing, but may not be returning any time soon. Let's just say his performance was cringe-inducing as he spun like a top attempting to deflect the very pointed, and basic yes-or-no questions of Rep. Cory Gardner (R - Colorado). An exasperated Stanislaus even resorted to a face-palm maneuver to regain his rhetorical footing. Of course, YouTube video exists...see below.

It's clear that the GOP wants to eliminate the EPA's current attempt/ability to regulate greenhouse gases (CO2) and, here, coal-ash, and is using its newly acquired power in the House to call hearings, demand/compel Obama administration officials to testify, and expose the job-killing nature of the EPA's regulations. In other words, this is how politics works. The liberal media's lack of coverage of this "inconsistency" in word versus deed with the Obama EPA demonstrates how in-the-tank the media is for the '12 re-election. Ideology is more important than jobs.

Rest of the article.

The EPA Should Regulate Itself

By Elmer Beauregard

Today the Senate ensured the EPA's power grab by defeating a bill that would stop the EPA from regulating CO2. The House is still debating and hopefully will pass a similar law yet today, but even if it gets to Obama's desk, he has promised to veto it.


The EPA is going to start regulating businesses that emit over 25,000 tons of CO2 annually. When they do, they should start by regulating themselves.

The EPA employees 17,000 bureaucrats and everyone one of them emits approx. 1/2 ton of CO2 a year just by breathing. That adds up to only 8.5 tons of CO2, but if you add all the CO2 they emit commuting back and forth to work the EPA is responsible for way more than 25,000 tons of the deadly CO2 being ejected into the atmosphere every year. The problem is, If the EPA did tax itself for emitting CO2 the American people will be the ones that pay for it.

Of course the Federal Government employees 1.8 million people, and at 1/2 ton of CO2 a year per person, they emit almost one million tons of CO2 every year just by breathing.

By Phil Kerpen, Fox News

Today, the U.S. House is expected to vote by a wide margin to stop the EPA's job-crushing backdoor energy taxes.

Unfortunately it was a different story yesterday in the Senate, where 64 senators agreed the EPA must be stopped, but only 50 voted for the amendment that would actually stop them. The other 50 were able to sit on their hands and willingly allow the EPA to usurp the legislative responsibility with which voters entrusted them. Because of them, the vote fell short of the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, and the EPA power grab will - at least for now - continue.

The good news is that half the Senate -- including Democrats Joe Manchin (W. Va.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) -- have said that the EPA should not be twisting the 1970 Clean Air Act into a vehicle for undemocratically pursuing sweeping energy tax regulations. The only Republican to vote no was Susan Collins (Maine).

Proposed EPA mandates would serve as an unprecedented power grab over much of the U.S. economy and immediately impose costly new regulations leading to massive job losses and making U.S. businesses far less competitive in the world. Congress never gave the EPA the power to pursue these job-killing regulations.

Rest of the article.

By Mark Clayton, Christian Science Monitor

After months of political gyrations and jawboning, both houses of Congress are expected to vote Wednesday on measures to limit, or block altogether, the ability of the US Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Driving the issue is the real likelihood that the EPA will next year, for the first time, issue emission standards to curb greenhouse gases from large industrial smokestacks.

Last year the Senate declined to vote on comprehensive climate-energy legislation, despite the threat that not doing so would prompt the EPA to proceed, via regulation, to curb carbon dioxide and certain other emissions from power plants and other industrial facilities, such as cement plants, factories, and refineries. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has proceeded to do exactly that.

Rest of the article.


New calculations applied to a U.S. Senate report reveal the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to combat global warming through regulation of greenhouse gases would theoretically take over $700 trillion, seven times the world's gross production, to drop the earth's temperature only 1 degree Celsius.

The report released last year by Sen. James Ihnofe, R-Okla., then-ranking minority member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, quotes the EPA's own stats and experts to break down the numbers, including one researcher who called the Obama administration's plan "absurd."

Citing a study by the EPA's Dr. Linda M. Chappell and various other sources, the Senate report asserts, "EPA has called the consequences of regulating greenhouse gases under the [Clean Air Act] 'absurd,' affecting 6.1 million sources, introducing $78 billion in annual costs, causing 'at least a decade or longer' of permit delays, 'slowing' construction nationwide for years, 'introducing burdens that are administratively 'infeasible,' 'overwhelming,' that will 'adversely affect national economic development,' while impacting sources 'not appropriate at this point to even consider regulating.'"

By Phillip Suderman, Washington Examiner

One of the issues coming out of the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget is the funding level for the Environmental Protection Agency. President Obama, in a move to try and appease both the business community and those concerned about the deficit, agreed to a reduction in the EPA's budget of $1.3 billion. The resulting $9 billion budget is still too much for Republicans, who are looking to reduce the agencies funding by an additional $1.5 billion to $7.5 billion.

The real problem here, though, isn't how much money the EPA is receiving, but the authority that EPA has to regulate. If Republicans are looking to prevent the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases, for instance, simply cutting funds isn't enough.

Read the rest of the article.

By Agence France-Presse, Raw Story

WASHINGTON - Conservative senators vowed Monday to strip President Barack Obama of his power to regulate greenhouse gases, in a move that would cripple US efforts on climate change if successful.

Eleven Republican senators introduced a bill that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, which scientists blame for global warming, without explicit approval by Congress.

Under Obama, the federal agency has steadily increased standards on gas emissions. The Republicans accused Obama of circumventing Congress, where a so-called "cap-and-trade" bill to mandate emission curbs died last year.

"My bill will shrink Washington's job-crushing agenda and grow America's economy," said Senator John Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming and skeptic of climate change who is leading the effort.

"I will do whatever it takes to ensure that Washington doesn't impose cap-and-trade policies in any form."

Rest of the article.

Texas Insider Report: Washington, D.C. - Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas, Michael Burgess, R-Texas, and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, joined 12 other Republicans to reintroduced the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act or BULB Act, H.R. 91.

The BULB Act repeals Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which is a de facto ban on the incandescent light bulb.

"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom. Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market. The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don't want congress dictating what light fixtures they can use," said Rep. Barton. "Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFL's, are more expensive and health hazards - so why force them on the American people? From the health insurance you're allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to you and your family."

"Thousands of American jobs have been shipped overseas as a direct consequence of this light bulb provision in the Democrats' 2007 energy bill," Burgess said. "I have stated all along that exposing our citizens to the harmful effects of the mercury contained in CFL light bulbs, which are being manufactured in China, is likely to pose a hazard for years to come. Not only would this bill be better for the environment, but it would be one step to bringing jobs back to America."

By Kimberly Schwandt, FoxNews

HONOLULU, Hawaii -- After failing to get climate-change legislation through Congress, the Obama administration plans on pushing through its environmental policies through other means, and Republicans are ready to put up a fight.

On Jan. 2, new carbon emissions limits will be put forward as the Environmental Protection Agency prepares regulations that would force companies to get permits to release greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Critics say the new rules are a backdoor effort to enact the president's agenda on global warming without the support of Congress, and would hurt the economy and put jobs in jeopardy by forcing companies to pay for expensive new equipment.

"They are job killers. Regulations, period -- any kind of regulation is a weight on economy. It requires people to comply with the law, which takes work hours and time, which reduces the profitability of firms. Therefore, they grow more slowly and you create less jobs," said environmental scientist Ken Green of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

Read more

EDITORIAL: EPA's power grab

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

Canada Free Press

The federal government is ushering in 2011 with new powers that will jack up energy costs for consumers. In the name of fighting unproven climate-change theories, bureaucrats are pushing through tough new business restrictions on emissions from energy plants that light and heat homes across the country. As a result, Americans in the near future may be forced to pay a hidden tax in their electric bills or, worse, find themselves in the dark and cold.

The Environmental Protection Agency's new rules, which take effect Jan. 2, will impose limits on carbon dioxide. The EPA's primary targets are coal-plant operators, who will be forced to choose between retrofitting their facilities with expensive emissions-control equipment and cooling towers or shutting them down. Democratic Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV - whose West Virginia coal-country constituents have the most to lose from the tough emissions restrictions - announced Friday that he had failed in his 11th-hour attempt to force a Senate vote to suspend the regulations before they take effect. His measure would have delayed for two years the new emissions requirements for power plants, refineries and manufacturing factories under the Clean Air Act.

A study released Dec. 8 by the Brattle Group, an economic consultancy, found that the new EPA rules could force the retirement of older power plants that produce 50,000 to 67,000 megawatts of electricity, or roughly 20 percent of the nation's coal-fired power plants. As many as 70 million homes could be subject to blackouts, according to American Solutions, an advocacy group for conventional energy. Equipping remaining plants to comply with the mandates would cost $100 billion to $180 billion, the Brattle report warned. Those expenses would be passed along to consumers in the form of higher electric bills.

Rest of the article.

Dr. Jerome Corsi -

BrownShirts3.jpgThe Environmental Protection Agency is prepared in 2011 to implement carbon taxes without any new legislation being passed by Congress, Politico reported. The move demonstrates Obama's plan to govern America by executive decree.The EPA has evidently agreed on a schedule to set greenhouse gas emissions standards, known as "performance standards," for the nation's power plants and refineries, two of the largest carbon-emitting industries, the website reported.

The EPA is expected to issue a draft greenhouse gas performance standard by July 2011 and a final rule by May 2012, despite continuing concerns after the Climategate release of U.N. climate science e-mails that the anthropogenic global warming scare is an ideological cause based on junk science.

The rest of the article.

Minnesota Legislature Causing Global Warming

| 1 Comment

By Elmer Beaureguard, February 14, 2007

The Minnesota Legislature may have to fine itself for causing Global Warming! No this is not an "Onion" story. When humans exhale they emit CO2, and CO2 emissions may soon be heavily regulated, according to proposed bills in the Minnesota Legislature.
Senate File: SF0192 and House File: HF0375


The Bills State: "Allowance" means an authorization from a state regulatory agency to emit up to one ton of carbon dioxide equivalent during a specified year.

September 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Powered by Movable Type 5.12

About this Archive

This page is an archive of recent entries in the EPA Power Grab category.

Duh Winning is the previous category.

Geoengineering is the next category.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.