In the Pipeline: 1/2/13

The trusty “we’re running out of oil!” pundits are now “sure, the US will overtake Saudi Arabia and lead the world in oil production…but maybe only for a decade or so” pundits. IER(1/2/12) reports: “For decades, the proponents of so-called green or alternative energy sources have bemoaned the United States’ alleged ‘dependence on foreign oil’ as a chief rallying cry to fire up the average citizen. Americans are very reluctant to pay higher electricity and gasoline prices for abstract concepts such as ‘fighting global warming,’ but they sure don’t like having to ‘fight wars in the Middle East for oil’ either.”

 

These guys at the EPA must have done poorly at their science fairs in elementary school, and now they’re passive-aggressively taking it out on the guys who actually understand things like science and technology. WSJ (1/1/13) reports: “The USGS also noted that in constructing the monitoring wells, the EPA used a “black painted/coated carbon steel casing,” and EPA photographs show that investigators used a painted device to catch sand from the wells. The problem is that paint can contain a variety of compounds that distort test results—so it is poor scientific practice to use painted or coated materials in well-monitoring tests.”

 

Buckle up.  It’s going to be a fun year. WSJ (1/2/13) reports: “The fiscal-cliff deal approved in the Senate included a $12 billion extension of a wind-power tax credit and other support for renewable energy, sparking opposition from House Republicans who said it was an example of the kind of government spending they wanted to cut.”

 

Unfortunately, the end of one era does not always mean the start of better era: “The reign of Jackson cannot end soon enough.”National Review Online (12/28/12) reports: “Today, thousands of coal miners are without work as her power plant regulations (backed by a president who embraced Jackson’s crusade, calling global warming “one of the greatest moral challenges of our generation”) have bankrupted mining companies such as Patriot Coal and forced others such as OhioAmerica and Alpha Natural Resources to downsize. An oil opponent, Jackson successfully lobbied the president to reject the transcontinental Keystone Pipeline, costing the U.S. some 20,000 jobs. Her global warming zeal extended to autos when she took the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE) away from the Transportation Department — mandating that auto companies meet a pie-in-the-sky standard of 54.5 mpg by 2025 in an attempt to eliminate the internal combustion engine (the industry is spending millions on lobbying to water down the rules).”

Energy Development a Parachute for Fiscal Cliff

A recent article at Free Enterprise outlined U.S. Chamber President Tom Donohue’s suggestion for easing the problem of solving the so-called fiscal cliff: development of U.S. conventional energy resources. This would boost employment and output, lower energy prices for consumers, and bring in more revenue for various levels of government. If policymakers are serious as they wring their hands about the stalled economy and mushrooming public debt, then they should jump at this win-win solution.

The Free Enterprise article then cited several studies confirming Donohue’s claims:

A new study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for 21st Century Energy found that unconventional oil and natural gas development will be responsible for 1.3 million new jobs by 2020, and an additional 1.8 million jobs by 2035. This activity will generate more than $2.5 trillion in tax revenues between 2012 and 2035, according to the study.

Another Chamber study, Project No Project, conducted in 2011 concluded that if the permitting process were accelerated, the planning and construction of 351 proposed energy projects would generate 1.9 million construction jobs and 790,000 permanent jobs.

Moreover, an American Petroleum Institute found that by 2018 another million jobs could be created by encouraging the development of new and existing North American oil and gas, as well as building the Keystone XL pipeline. Doing these things could also add hundreds of billions of dollars over time to federal, state, and local tax coffers.

Donohue’s proposal is the polar opposite of calls for a carbon tax as a “solution” to the fiscal cliff. A carbon tax would raise electricity and gasoline prices for consumers, and would stifle economic growth, especially if its revenues were used to fuel government spending, as opposed to offsetting cuts in other taxes. Because a carbon tax is more economically damaging than even an income tax, the projections of the extra trillion-plus in revenue it will bring to the Treasury are probably optimistic, as the overall tax base will grow more slowly because of the onerous burden on energy. One could argue that the environmental benefits (in the form of mitigated climate change damages decades in the future) are high enough to justify the costs of imposing a carbon tax, but the point is that a carbon tax would hurt the conventional economy.

In contrast, Donohue’s proposal to liberalize federal constraints on oil and gas development would bring in extra revenue while boosting the conventional economy. There is a fundamental difference between collecting more tax revenue because of a new tax (like a carbon tax), versus collecting more tax revenue because previously forbidden activities are now permissible. In a sense, it would be as if the Obama Administration currently has an “infinity tax” on the Northern Pipeline, but would be reducing it to the standard income tax rates by approving the project. Thus, even though more revenue would flow to the Treasury, the move should be interpreted as a “tax cut” in the grand scheme.

As policymakers fret about the tepid economic recovery, the horrible job market, and the ballooning debt, the obvious solution is staring them in the face: Stop restricting entrepreneurs from developing the generous deposits of oil and gas on U.S. land.

In the Pipeline: 12/31/12

Maybe peering over the edge of a cliff will attune these bozos in Washington to mortality.  I wouldn’t count on it, though. AEA (12/31/12) reports: “With our nation’s economic future in their hands, Senate leaders are negotiating behind closed doors in the latest round of political brinkmanship to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. Early reports indicate that some leaders are insisting on an inclusion of the wind production tax credit into any final package, and precisely at the moment they are attempting to raise taxes on small business owners and American families who must pay for it. Billion dollar giveaways to special interests are among the leading drivers of our present fiscal strain, and yet Senate leaders are planning to increase corporate welfare to the most intermittent and unreliable energy sources in our national electricity portfolio.”

 

Having a second email account isn’t illegal or even immoral.  But conducting government business on that account is a strict no-no. They tell you that in the first hour of orientation when you join up. Is the United States Attorney for DC investigating?  Because he should be. Mail Online (12/27/12) reports: “A Washington attorney suing the Environmental Protection Agency for refusing to disclose information about the creation and use of the ‘secondary’ email accounts, says the agency’s chief is resigning in part because of the Justice Department’s decision to publicize thousands of secret alias emails she was responsible for.”

 

Mary Nichols was a catastrophe when she was the AA for Air and Radiation during the Clinton Administration.  It’s doubtful that a few years in the Jerry Brown Administration have improved her. SFGate (12/28/12) reports: “The woman who led California through the development and implementation of some groundbreaking environmental policies could soon be headed to Washington, D.C. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson announced her resignation this week, and already people are speculating about who will next head the agency. One name on nearly every pundit’s short list: California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols.”

 

That’s right, the shale boom is so big you can see it from space. I wonder how long it will take until our politicians and bureaucrats can see the huge potential. Scientific American (12/28/12) reports: “This image is originally from NASA’s Earth at Night series that I’ve been following. The Eagle Ford Shale shows up as bands of lights below San Antonio, stretching from where the “Tex meets the Mex” to Interstate 10. What we’re seeing on the shale is not city or town lights that have sprung up because of the fracking activity. More than likely, we’re seeing well flares that are picked up by the imaging sensors aboard the Soumi NPP satellite, which detects both city lights and gas flares using a “day-night band”. You can also see flaring from offshore oil and gas platforms in the Gulf of Mexico, spreading out like silt from the Mississippi River, and some more flaring out in West Texas.”

 

At least we live in country where our defense capabilities are not jeopardized by silly rules, right…? The Telegraph (12/29/12) reports: “The fighting capability of the [British] Army’s new generation of armoured vehicles could be limited by European rules on greenhouse gas emissions… To avoid breaching the EU rules, the 3,000 vehicles must be specially designed to limit the damage to the environment in the battlefield.”

 

Tanton knows where the bodies are buried. He’s been following Big Wind’s racket in California for 40 years. Forbes (12/21/12) reports: “But it could be getting a lot worse for wind. A fascinating new report by George Taylor and Tom Tanton at the American Tradition Institute called ‘The Hidden Costs of Wind Electricity’ asserts that the cost of wind power is significantly understated by the EIA’s numbers. In fact, says Taylor, generating electricity from wind costs triple what it does from natural gas… That’s because the numbers from the EIA and wind boosters fail to take into account a host of infrastructure and transmission costs.”

 

I suppose it wouldn’t be surprising if a beetle were to spell the downfall of the U.S. by burrowing into our rotten shell of a republic.  At least that’s the way things seem to be going these days. Heritage (12/21/12) reports: “While it is likely a silly argument that this beetle’s preferred habitat is dotted with pipelines, it’s as reasonable as the idea that the greens seek to stop the Keystone Pipeline for the beetle. It is not about the beetle or even really about the effect of the pipeline on habitat. It is about what would flow through the pipeline—energy. From the radical greens’ view, what is worst about this energy isn’t even that it would be a source of CO2. What is worst is that it would be affordable and reliable.”

WILL SENATE EXTEND WIND WELFARE IN FISCAL CLIFF DEAL?

WASHINGTON D.C. — On early reports that the United States Senate will include an extension of the Production Tax Credit for wind energy in the final deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, American Energy Alliance President Thomas Pyle released the following statement:

“With our nation’s economic future in their hands, Senate leaders are negotiating behind closed doors in the latest round of political brinkmanship to avert the so-called fiscal cliff. Early reports indicate that some leaders are insisting on an inclusion of the wind production tax credit into any final package, and precisely at the moment they are attempting to raise taxes on small business owners and American families who must pay for it. Billion dollar giveaways to special interests are among the leading drivers of our present fiscal strain, and yet Senate leaders are planning to increase corporate welfare to the most intermittent and unreliable energy sources in our national electricity portfolio.

“Including a PTC extension in a midnight, closed-door compromise is all too reminiscent of earlier congressional actions that have born drastic economic consequences. Yet the Senate is hoping to quench Big Wind’s never-ending thirst for subsidies on the backs of small businesses and American families who the fiscal cliff deal should be designed to protect.”

In the Pipeline: 12/21/12

From our family to yours, Merry Christmas. 

This runs contrary to the spirit of Christmas, but it looks like we have no hope. Energy Guardian (12/21/12) reports: “The Obama administration’s plan to spend $510 million on refineries to make drop-in biofuels for its Great Green Fleet advanced after House passage Thursday of a $633 million 2013 defense authorization bill.”

 

Look Ma! We’re famous! The Hill (12/20/12) reports: “Letter signatories included the American Energy Alliance, Heritage Action, Freedom Action, Competitive Enterprise Institute and American Commitment… Those groups sent a letter last week urging lawmakers representing states without renewable targets to axe the wind credit. They argued the incentive helped other states while failing to benefit those without mandates.”

 

Assuming the Mayans weren’t right about today, here’s something to look forward to in 2013. Politico (12/20/12) reports: “Facing paralysis in Washington and abroad, Arnold Schwarzenegger is taking the threat of climate change into his own hands.”

 

Hey Rep. Bishop, we like where you’re going with this.  We can save you a lot of time, though.  May we present to you the American Energy Act. The Hill (12/20/12) reports: “The House Natural Resources committee will devote more attention to environmental reviews and their effects on advancing energy development in a new subcommittee next Congress… National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluations will now be wrapped into the newly formed subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulation… Currently called the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) will remain its chairman.”

 

Green greed knows no bounds:  Xcel admits PTC distorts electricity markets, yet wants to substitute one Big Wind taxpayer giveaway with two others.  Udall, Chu, and the Wind Bags (aka AWEA) say good idea, only we want all three.  That David Brown guy is the only one making any sense in this whole conversation. National Journal (12/20/12) reports: “Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., whose office has met with Xcel lobbyists on this proposal, expressed initial support for the idea during a Wednesday event on wind energy at the Energy Department alongside Secretary Steven Chu, but only in addition to the PTC. Wind lobbyist AWEA took the same stance… Xcel lobbyist John O’Donnell said that since the investment tax credit is given up front and not based on production, it would not distort real-time electricity markets, which is the key reason Exelon, the country’s biggest nuclear generator, opposes the PTC. Exelon also opposes Xcel’s proposal, though… ‘Substituting one subsidy for another in a way that continues to distort power markets is not a viable solution,’ Exelon lobbyist David Brown said in an e-mailed statement to NJD.”

 

Now batting in the cleanup spot.  We think it’s safe to put Mr. O’Keefe on our list below.  In fact, he is making the rest of us look like softies.WSJ (12/20/12) reports: “What’s more, the climate-change justification for a carbon tax is bogus. Greenhouse-gas emissions are rising in China and other emerging economies, not in the United States. Carbon-dioxide emissions in the U.S. have been declining and by 2035 will return to 2005 levels, the Energy Information Administration projects.”

 

The following think tank chiefs are opposed to a carbon tax.  The list to date follows.  If your guy is not on the list, it is because he either favors a carbon tax, wants to retain the option of favoring a carbon tax at some point in the future, or has yet to contact us.

Tom Pyle, American Energy Alliance / Institute for Energy Research
Myron Ebell, Freedom Action
Phil Kerpen, American Commitment
William O’Keefe, George C. Marshall Institute
Fred Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Andrew Quinlan, Center for Freedom and Prosperity
Tim Phillips, Americans for Prosperity
Joe Bast, Heartland Institute
David Ridenour, National Center for Public Policy Research
Michael Needham, Heritage Action for America
Tom Schatz, Citizens Against Government Waste
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Sabrina Schaeffer, Independent Women’s Forum
Barrett E. Kidner, Caesar Rodney Institute
George Landrith, Frontiers of Freedom

2012 Bus Tour

Coalition to 369 Members of Congress: Let the Wind PTC Expire

WASHINGTON D.C. — The American Energy Alliance joined with other coalition partners today in a letter to 369 members of the 112th Congress, urging them to oppose an extension of the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC), an outsized incentive that distorts energy markets and negatively impacts electricity reliability. The letter went to senators and representatives from 29 states with renewable mandates that force utility companies to purchase wind energy. The letter also was sent as a courtesy to the Delegate from the District of Columbia, who is a non-voting member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Over 75 percent of all active wind generating capacity came on-line in the past five years — a period concurrent with the expansion of state renewable energy mandates — illustrating that the PTC is not the biggest driver of wind installations in your state. Rather, what the PTC does in practice is decrease electricity reliability in your state and cause serious distortions in the market,” the group wrote.

“Reliable, affordable, and ‘always on’ electricity is critical to get our economy back on track. The wind PTC is detrimental to dependable and cost-effective forms of electricity generation. We urge you to allow this wasteful, unsustainable, and counterproductive subsidy to expire at the end of the year.”

States which currently have renewable mandates are: Arizona; California; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; Hawaii; Illinois; Iowa; Kansas; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri; Montana; Nebraska; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; North Carolina; Ohio; Oregon; Pennsylvania; Rhode Island; Texas; Washington; Wisconsin; and the District of Columbia.

To read the entire letter, click here.

To read the Dec. 12 coalition letter to Members of Congress representing states that do not have renewable mandates, click here.

###

In the Pipeline: 12/19/12

It is increasingly clear that Senator Lamar Alexander has been eating his spinach. IER (12/18/12) reports: “In a speech Thursday on the Senate floor, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) gave the following floor speech in response to the wind industry’s phase-out proposal of the wind Production Tax Credit:”

 

In a way, it’s like the government is raising a very dysfunctional family.  One kid gets a timeout while the other continues to raid the cookie jar.  This does not end well for anyone. Fox News(12/17/12) reports: “Lights left on during a foggy night last year at a West Virginia wind farm are thought to be behind the grizzly deaths of nearly 500 songbirds… It was the third time it happened — and each time, the federal government looked the other way… Fast forward to last week. Following the deaths of a dozen migratory birds in Montana, Wyoming and Nebraska several years back, a Denver-based oil company was fined $22,500. The company was also ordered to make an additional $7,500 payment to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.”

 

Happy 5th anniversary, Renewable Fuels Mandate.  Seriously, what do you get for somebody who has already gotten everything they have ever wanted from the federal government? The Hill (12/15/12) reports: “House Republicans plan to put the renewable fuel standard on trial next Congress, a House Energy and Commerce Committee aide told The Hill… Committee staff is gearing up for hearings on the subject, citing recent concerns from the AAA motor club, automakers and the oil industry that the rule is pushing a high-ethanol fuel blend onto the market they say will damage cars.”

 

Boom goes the dynamite. The Beacon Hill Institute (December 2012) reports: “Pennsylvania’s Alternative Energy Portfolio Standard, which requires that utilities obtain 18 percent of their power generation from non-traditional resources by the year 2021, would likely lead to an economic cost to the Commonwealth of $16.3 billion from 2013-2021, according to a new study published by the Beacon Hill Institute… The report, prepared by economists at Suffolk University in Boston, found that Pennsylvanians will likely see their power bills increase by nearly 12 percent due to the mandate, and perhaps as high as 15 percent. Since the dependence on electricity is ubiquitous, those costs are regressive and will hit low-income households the hardest. Unsurprisingly, the higher costs – which have an effect similar to tax increases – will result in thousands of net job losses and decreases in disposable income.”

 

Fast Eddie vs. The Incredible Hunk.  This one is going to be far too much fun to pass up. Boston.com (12/18/12) reports: “US Representative Edward J. Markey said Monday he would consider running for the US Senate were John F. Kerry nominated for secretary of state, but a poll he’s conducting shows it’s not just some idle thought… A Massachusetts resident relayed to a Globe reporter the contents of a 20-minute survey an out-of-state firm conducted via telephone that assessed Markey’s strengths and weaknesses in a potential match-up against Senator Scott Brown.”

 

Mission accomplished!  Edison Mission Energy bankruptcy another notch in Richard Windsor’s belt. LA Times (12/18/12) reports: “Edison Mission Energy has been struggling on several fronts: depressed energy prices because of the nation’s boom in natural gas production; higher fuel costs affecting its older coal-fired facilities and pending debt maturities… The company also said that it faced the ‘need to retrofit its coal-fired facilities to comply with environmental regulations.’”

 

How sad. Politico (12/18/12) reports: “Clean Air-Cool Planet, a climate change advocacy nonprofit, is shuttering its Washington office, according to an email from Brooks Yeager, the group’s executive vice president for policy, who announced he is stepping down Friday. “I believe, given the overall fundraising environment and the challenge that CA-CP has faced in raising unrestricted revenue, that the decision of the board and the executive director to wind down CA-CP’s policy effort and to close our Washington office and to focus the group’s future work on our national campus emissions reduction and the Northeast regional adaptation effort makes a good deal of sense,” Yeager wrote in the email, which was sent to friends and colleagues.”

In the Pipeline: 12/18/12

Like they always say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions. POWER Mag (12/1/12) reports: “Forgotten by many proponents is the justification for the PTC in the first place: to reduce CO2 emissions…. [Yet] … many utilities with large amounts of wind generation steadfastly refuse to release operating data for analysis. I suspect to do so would mean the release of empirical data to build the opposition’s case for insignificant CO2 reduction and poor operating economics. I was unable to find one study of existing wind energy installations that found the CO2 reductions predicted by AWEA.”

 

Dumb: Green energy investing. Wall Street Daily (12/17/12) reports: “People can “go green” all they want. After all, America is still the land of the free. But I just don’t recommend that investors do it. And that’s not because I’ve got something against the tree-hugger mentality.”

 

And Dumber: Combating cronyism with more cronyism.  Seriously, what do you think are the chances a government investment in technology will produce jobs and economic growth?  Hit me with it.  Just level with me.  Give it to me straight.  Like, one out of a million? IEEE Spectrum (12/14/12) reports: “The continuing saga of A123 Systems Inc. has culminated this past week in most of its assets being sold for US $256.6 million to the Chinese-owned Wanxiang America Corporation, an auto parts conglomerate… Why the US government would give a grant to expand the company’s production capacity when the market problem it faced was that its main customer wasn’t selling any of its own products is probably a worthy discussion. However, combating crony capitalism with more crony capitalism, which some U.S. Senators seemed engaged in with their fight to block the sale, hardly seems to be a solution.”

 

Rob shucks this corn like a total boss. Forbes (12/17/12) reports: “Back in 2007, the RFS’s biodiesel mandate seemingly had a public-interest rationale. But now, with five years worth of evidence, it’s clear this rule is a failure economically and environmentally. It should be scrapped, not ratcheted up in 2013.”

 

You say tomato, I say tomato.  You say Tropical Storm Sandy so the folks can collect more insurance.  I say Hurricane Sandy so the eco-thugs have a talking point.  Of course, Chuck Schumer has never had a problem talking out of both sides of his mouth.  Or just plain talking for that matter. Powerline Blog (12/17/12) reports: “Today, we’ve sent a letter to NOAA, the weather agency, as well as to the insurance companies that we’re looking over their shoulder. We want NOAA to keep this classified as a tropical storm and to save homeowners in New York and Long Island thousands of dollars and we don’t want the insurance companies to play any games.”

 

Markey’s Way: If at first you don’t like the results of a DOE study, browbeat the agency mercilessly until they redo it to your liking.  We hear Pacino will be playing the role of Ed Markey. Reuters(12/17/12) reports: “‘Given the important role this study may play in determining U.S. natural gas export policy, I strongly urge that the study’s methodology be reevaluated in some key areas, that the most recent projection data available be utilized in the model, and that the model be re-run and re-analyzed,’ said Congressman Edward Markey, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources committee.”

 

We included this interview because clearly Grover Norquist has given this carbon tax thing some thought.  But mostly because we dig Maria Bartiromo. USA Today (12/16/12) reports: “But one thing to keep in mind: If the president got the tax increases he said he wanted in his budget, you still have an $8 trillion debt over the next 10 years. Which means he has to come to the middle class with an energy tax. So when that happens, I think the Democrats will have a hard time explaining themselves in 2014 and ’16 … since this little tax increase — on high-income people and small businesses doesn’t solve Obama’s problem. He has to get the carbon tax, which is thousands of dollars per family.”

 

There will doubtlessly be some fun questions for Senator Kerry during the confirmation process.  With Senators Barrasso and Inhofe on the dais, things could get dicey for the nominee when the time comes to start talking Keystone XL.  Kerry will likely get a pass, though, unless Michael Brune finds out that Teresa Heinz has her money in TransCanada. Reuters (12/17/12) reports: “There is a possibility the U.S. State Department will have a new secretary before the department’s deadline of the end of March for a issuing a decision on the project. Democratic Senator John Kerry, who has long supported taking more action to cut greenhouse gas emissions, is widely expected to be the nominee to replace Hillary Clinton.”

In the Pipeline: 12/17/12

Even the Washington Post thinks the wind PTC should end.  Too bad they blow on the carbon tax. Washington Post (12/15/12) reports: “Some of those who sympathize with the wind subsidy, known as the production tax credit (PTC), say that it represents a second-best approach to supporting green energy. In fact it is not even a third- or fourth-best alternative to a carbon tax. At a cost of $1 billion a year, it offers wind operators a flat tax credit for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they produce. No matter if the grid doesn’t need the electricity at any given moment or if the policy blunts the incentive to reduce costs.”

 

Soot, Lies and Videotape:  Has anybody else noticed that the EPA tends to release these “all benefits, no cost” rules on a Friday afternoon?  You should pay attention to Scott Segal and Jay Timmons on this one.  Unfortunately, they are on the mark. NYTimes (12/14/12) reports: “Scott H. Segal, representing a coalition of coal companies and utilities, wrote to Ms. Jackson, pointing to a 2011 study saying that citing counties for noncompliance ‘increases energy prices, reduces manufacturing productivity and causes local manufacturing companies to exit the areas that are designated as being in nonattainment.’ Six senators, led by Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, wrote Ms. Jackson on Friday expressing concern about the new rule. ‘E.P.A. should not rush at this time toward imposing more regulatory burdens on struggling areas,’ the lawmakers wrote.”

 

EPA expects all but 7-10 counties to reach attainment under currently existing rules “without any additional action”.  At the same time, EPA claims that its new standard will “prevent up to 40,000 premature deaths, 32,000 hospital admissions and 4.7 million days of work lost due to illness”.  How many dead bodies are there currently in those counties?  How busy are their hospitals?  How can any business survive that many sick days?  How can anyone believe anything that comes out of EPA nowadays? Politico (12/15/12) reports: “The finished rule that emerged from the agency Friday is mostly as stringent as the one that EPA submitted for White House review in the summer. That’s a turnaround from the experience of the last couple of years, in which White House pressure forced the EPA to postpone a new rule on smog and placed regulations on toxic coal ash into a deep freeze.”

 

The kisses of an enemy are deceitful, the wounds of a friend are true. Sierra Club (12/14/12) reports: “For all of us at the Sierra Club, Denise Bode has been a brilliant partner, a skilled colleague, and a fearless leader. Her work at AWEA has helped bring clean energy to the forefront of the national conversation and has put the wind industry on track to be a leading energy producer in the country. I am confident that wherever her future endeavors take her, Denise will continue to be a strong advocate for clean energy, and an important ally for environmentalists everywhere.”

 

We’d say this secures a solid spot on Santa’s ‘nice list’ for the year. The Spectator (12/15/12) reports: “No more would I trade in blood diamonds or child pornography than I would accept money in any shape or form from Big Wind. The time is long since past when anyone complicit in this vile, corrupt, mendacious industry — not the lawyers, not the engineers, not the land agents, not the investors — could be unaware of the damage it does: to the landscape, to rural communities, to wildlife, to people’s health, to the economy generally.”

 

Did Richard Windsor thank the staff as well? EPA (12/14/12) reports: “Dear Colleagues: As President Barack Obama’s second term draws near, it is a great time to pause, take stock of the past four years and look to our future at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the President’s continuing leadership. I am immensely proud of the work we have done together and the extraordinary contributions of the EPA’s talented and dedicated work force. We can say with confidence that protection of public health and the environment is stronger today because of our efforts.”