CAFE Standards to Add To Cost of A Car

Earlier this summer the Obama Administration hammered together new MPG standards for the auto-industry. By the year 2025 the industry-wide mileage standard will be 55.4 MPG for passenger cars. As expected, folks from the auto industry balked at the increases saying that this will increase the cost of building these vehicles which would then be passed along to consumers.

It even looks like President Obama’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the EPA agree with the auto industry. These agencies predict that…”CAFE standards would add an average of $2,000 to the price of each new passenger vehicle.

Another PACNW Dam Bites the Dust

At the end of the month, PacifiCorp will be punching a hole in a dam that holds back water on the North Salmon River in SW Washington. This dam has been in place for nearly 100 years and generates power for approximately 8000 homes.

The dam is being removed because the company that runs the Condit Dam and uses it for power generation said it would be cheaper to bring it down rather than retrofit the dam for salmon migration. PacifiCorp figures it would cost over $100 million to build the necessary salmon bypasses, but $32 million to knock it down. Obviously, PacifiCorp decided to go the cheaper route.

Behind the dam removal (and the Elwha Dam near Port Townsend, WA and it’s 14.8 megawatts of power generation) the Endangered Species Act, which has designated the salmon as an endangered species. Because of this, all impediments to salmon migration have to be removed or overcame. As pointed out above, it is cheaper to destroy the dam.

Growing the EPA

Well, at least there might be some job creation by the Obama Administration.

In order to enforce the new draconian greenhouse gas laws (in which carbon, a gas that occurs natural in our atmosphere) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) might need to create more 230,000 new positions.  By-the-by, the EPA will also require an additional $31 billion in funding to enforce these new regulations.

Several left-wing media centers got their back up and tried to refute the EPA was going to hire 230,000 new workers. They failed. Nowhere in their articles do they touch on the point that while the EPA may not hold a massive “hiring day”, ignoring the point that the hiring will most likely occur over several years as the regulations take hold and enforcement becomes more prevalent.

Due to the complexity of enforcing what just might turn out to be the unenforceable, the EPA has asked the courts if the new regulations could be phased in using the “tailoring rule” According to an article at the “Daily Caller”, the tailoring rules cannot be applied to the Clean Air Act, under which the EPA has been granted permission to regulate this naturally occurring gas.

And even if the EPA manages to convince a court to make an exception, it seems committed to regulating everyone – at the full $21 billion cost – at some point down the road. “[T]he Tailoring Rule,” EPA writes in its brief, “is calculated to move toward eventual full compliance with the statutory threshold.” EPA adds that it intends to get there “as quickly as possible.” At present, the EPA is under a deadline to get it done by 2016. (Source: Daily Caller)

According to the brief filed by the EPA:

After considerable study and receipt of public comments, EPA determined that by phasing in the statutory thresholds, it could almost immediately achieve most of the emission benefits that would result from strict adherence to the literal 100/250 tpy threshold while avoiding the permit gridlock that unquestionably would result from the immediate application of that threshold. This phase-in process would also allow EPA time to develop streamlining measures that could eventually ease administration at the statutory thresholds. Thus, EPA promulgated the Tailoring Rule to phase in the applicability of these programs to GHG sources, starting with the largest GHG emitters. (Source EPA Brief) (Emphasis PACNW Righty)

See how in the brief they hedge their bets just a little with the phrase ‘that could eventually’? When was the last time anyone in the federal government, outside the military, had ever been able to streamline something? It is all about turf and who has the biggest. Streamlining means fewer people and smaller turf. You don’t think the 10 pound heads that are currently running the EPA aren’t thinking about increasing their turf? I have no doubt that the Obama’s cronies at the EPA are thinking “we now have 17,000 employees, imagine the control we could have if we had 247,000 employees.” Outside of the military that would make them the largest government agency. An employee base that large would make them nearly uncontrollable. Think for a minute: you are enjoying your Saturday evening cookout and suddenly out of your rose bushes pops the EPA Carbon Regulation Enforcement and Engagement Patrol (CREEP). That has to send a thrill up the leg of some current EPA administrators.

A Few Links for You

Here are a few interesting links to get your blood to boil a little bit.

1. A political appointee in the Labor Department has decided “with a stroke of the pen” that any project, private of public, that is built on federally leased lands is subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. The Davis-Bacon Act stipulates that any public (i.e. federally funded in whole or in part) works contract must pay prevailing wage, which is generally the highest union wage in the local area. As you might guess, this is probably going to create even more uncertainty in the economy. The American Thinker has more here.

2. When was the last time you found a conservative developing a game that targets for death anyone of the opposition party? I can’t seem to come with any examples either. It does appear that if you are a leftist you now have an online game where you can kill zombies made to look like leading Republicans such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann. Somehow, this really does seem worse than a Palin campaign ad saying certain districts need to be targeted for a change in leadership. I could be wrong. Nah.

Obama Makes A Good Decision - Whodda Thunk It?

Could it be that we are going to see President Obama actually turn a corner and make decisions that are based on sound logic and are good for this nation? I am not going to hold my breath for a long term change in direction, but Obama has actually made a decision based on how it will impact the majority of the nation, and not just his progressive or union pals.

Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency – and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers – and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog’s main ingredient. The decision rests in on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy. (Source: Yahoo News)

With the growth in the economy and in job creation at nearly zero, Obama had to do something that would, at the very least, not create further drag on the economy. This is sort of a reversal for him. In the past he has made what were clear to nearly everyone really poor economic decisions: QE 1 & 2, the stimulus, and Obama care, none of which have been a boost to job or economic growth. It almost seemed like he was making these decisions for precisely that: taking down the American economy so he could rebuild it in his socialist image.

As I said, I am not going to hold my breath. His greenies are already howling, and he will have to do something to appease that crowd. Maybe lock up another million acres on western land from any sort of development.

It Just Doesn't Stop

Would somebody please tell me this is not happening. I cannot believe the level of corruption that is so endemic throughout this administration. This kind of corruption is one of the reasons why President Obama is so loathed by the right. His progressive-stacked National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has just recently mandated that unions can basically form in a work place without the consent of the workers. Yes, you heard that right. The unions, who supposedly are for the "working man", are going to shaft the working man and woman by negotiating directly with the employer, leaving out the employees.

American's didn't want it, Congress wasn't going to pass it, and he wouldn't dare do it by executive order. So what happens? The NLRB does Obama's and union's bidding. Now a union can form in a work place without the consent of the workers.

A few years ago, as it was looking like Obama was going to be the democrat nominee and more than likely the next president, I got into an e-mail discussion with the editor of a prominent conservative web site. He was actually pulling for Obama to win, not because he liked Obama's politics, quite the opposite in fact. But his feeling was that a term with a progressive in the White House would reawaken the conservative majority in this country the same way that four years of Carter ushered in Reagan. My argument back to him, while agreeing with his points in principle, was the concern I had about the amount of damage Obama and Pelosi could do to this country during that period of time. I was also concerned there was not another Reagan-like individual out there.

New EPA Rules to Cost Jobs, Tax Revenue

Living in the PACNW we have a unique advantage over most of the nation when it comes to energy generation. The vast majority (60%) of the electricity produced in our region comes from hydro-power. The rest comes from nuclear, coal, and fire-fired producers. In fact, the region generates so much power, that we can sell it to other parts of the country, like California and Nevada.

So when the idiots at the EPA pass rules that will impact electrical generation, we are not going to see the same degradation in service that much of the nation will see.

New Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rules governing pollutants will certainly have an impact on power generation capability. The new rules propose that energy producers reduce certain pollutants by as much a 73% within the next year and half. Under these strict guidelines, may energy producers will not be able to met the deadlines or the requirements, forcing them to shut down operations. This is going to drive up energy prices, create blackout or brownout problems, and more than likely eliminate jobs.

Auto Industry Holding the (Short) Straw

When you are holding a soda straw and trying to negotiate with someone holding a gun, you are not bargaining from a position of strength. When it comes to the new mileage standards currently under negotiations with the Obama Administration, the auto-makers are holding a straw.

Read my initial post on this subject here.

During negotiations, one of the key areas that the auto-makers are looking at is the different rules imposed by the state of California on auto-makers. This “tradition” extends back several decades, initiated with the requirement for the catalytic converter. It has continued over the years as California has required auto-makers to improve fleet gas mileage and requiring oil companies to have a so-called summer gasoline blend (costly at the pump and the refineries). The auto-makes want a concession from President Obama that rules will not be different between California and the other 49 states.

Here is where it gets a little complicated. California is a huge state with 55 electoral votes up for grabs. It has been a democrat stronghold in recent years. But that could change. A recent bill passed by both chambers, but not signed by Governor “moonbeam” Brown, would give the electoral votes to the candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote. So Obama has to tread carefully here. He needs the voters of California to pad his popular vote totals. But he also has to not piss off the rest of the nation. If he wants those 55 California electoral votes, he has to find a balance (which I hope eludes him).

But California setting its own emission standards also falls under a states right under the Constitution. If I am not mistaken, California environmental laws have already been challenged in court and California has won. And oddly enough, I support California’s right to mandate laws that regulate items in their state, as long as those mandates meet or exceed federal levels. But the cost of this additional rules and regulations are passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for autos, which are some of the highest in the US.

There are some that say the California requirements have driven innovation. That argument does have some merit. But the marketplace also drives innovation. The auto itself and improvements therein were driven by demands from the public. Family size caused auto-makers to come up with cars that would carry the gang. Those wishing for a statement car drove the sports car market. The need for utility brought about the pickup. None of these hugely successful innovations were driven by government mandate. The marketplace demanded, the auto-makers delivered.

It is technically possible to reach the 62 mps wanted by the Obama Administration? I don’t know. But I am fairly certain that under current technology, it will be difficult AND it will be expensive. This will be a cost that you and I will have to bear.

Anyways, with the auto-makers holing the straw, I don’t see how a president who fancies himself and his branch of the government above the rest will be willing to give on this condition.

Is Environmental Regulation Costing the US Jobs?

Most of you who read my blog probably know that while I am a supporter of keeping our environment clean, I am not stupid about it. I do feel that industry must have some form of regulation and government oversight less they do damage to the environment like the placer mining companies did in California back in the late 1800’s.

As regulations and reviews have increased in size, scope and monetary outlay, they have become a burden on businesses. In California, environmental regulation has become so oppressive that heavy manufacturing has nearly become a thing of the past. These overbearing regulations are not isolated to CA. They have also caused the steel industry to be crippled and have closed off vast areas to resource development. The worst part of these regulations and reviews is that it has cost American jobs. Why would a manufacturer continue to build a product in this country when union wage scales and environmental regulations make it impossible for them to compete?

Local Washington State News

Here are a few stories from around the local (Washington State) area from the Seattle PI and the Seattle Times (occasionally I throw on a link to Crosscut, a kind of funky Seattle news site).

Gas Guzzler Tax

WA State resident may have to pay higher licensing fees if they own what is deemed as a “gas guzzler”. State legislators are floating ideas that could possibly increase the price drivers pay at the pump, or to register a vehicle, especially if that vehicle is larger. The extra taxes would go to support already heavily subsidized mass transit in King and Pierce counties.

Curbing the EPA

Today, I have been in conversation with a couple of other Big Government.com commenters over EPA accountability and whether the EPA should even exist.  In the article that got the conversation started, writer AWR Hawkins feels that recent efforts by the now Republican controlled House to curb the EPA and their wacky ways don’t go far enough:

“Fortunately, Republicans in the new Congress have seen the EPA’s latest power-grab for what it is and have offered two pieces of legislation to curtail the power of the mammoth agency. The bills, one of which was introduced by Senator John Barrasso (R-WY) and the other by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) and Representative Fred Upton (R-MI), bar the EPA ‘from using its regulatory authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate industrial emissions of greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide.’ In doing this, the bills literally roll back the clock by taking away powers the EPA has unilaterally given itself during the last 40 years (like the power to regulate CO2 emissions)”

“The only disappointing thing about Barrasso, Inhofe, and Upton are doing is that they don’t go far enough. In other words, it’s not just to rein in the EPA but to abolish it.”

5 Business Unfriendly EPA Regulations

During his SOTU speech last month, President Obama said he wants to help businesses get back to hiring and one of the ways he is going to help is to get rid of job killing regulations. Over at the Daily Caller, they have a list of five regulations Obama could get rid to help stimulate job growth. I’ll give you the highlights and my take, but read the whole story here.

1. EPA Climate Change Regulations. Since Congress thwarted Obama’s plans to pass a massive Capt and Trade bill, he has directed the EPA to put many of the Cap and Trade provisions in to effect through EPA regulations. Many businesses and even some homeowners could be impacted if the EPA has their way. Hopefully Congress will be able to dull the fangs of the EPA.

Environmental Advisor to Leave Obama Administration

President Obama seems to be bleeding advisors. Last year, Van Jones was forced to resign over some comments he made. Then Rahm Emanuel decided to depart so he could run for mayor of Chicago. Press Sec Robert Gibbs is leaving to start his own consulting firm. Christina Romer bails after more bad news. Peter Orzag, the Huffington Post hottie, leaves. Larry Summers looks for greener pastures. Now Carol Browner is leaving.

Kind of reminds me a rats jumping off a sinking ship.

Michelle Malkin has a run down on her efforts to really do in the US economy through various methods. Probably the worst example is when she basically lied about the Gulf drilling ban shortly after the Gulf oil spill disaster.

EPA Has a Fight On It's Hands

Sen John Barrasso (R-WY) is going up against the Obama Administration and the EPA. According to Politico.com’s “Morning Energy” newsletter, Sen Barrasso plans to introduce legislation on 24 Jan that will seek to block federal climate rules under the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act.

“The Barrasso bill stops this backdoor attempt to enact Obama’s cap-and-trade agenda through the EPA and the rest of the federal bureaucracy,” said Barrasso spokeswoman Emily Lawimore.  “By passing the Barrasso bill, we can protect jobs, consumers, and small businesses from Obama’s overreaching bureaucracy that is stifling job creation and slowing our economic recovery.”

Others in Congress are looking at ways to hamstring the EPA by either “blocking the agency from regulating climate”, or by looking at “the EPA’s funding”.