Energy Tomorrow Blog
Posted August 19, 2014
We’ve posted recently on potential roadblocks to the progress America’s energy revolution is providing – posed by administration policies and new regulatory proposals (infographic). Among them are proposed stricter standards for ground-level ozone that could put 94 percent of the country out of compliance, potentially impacting the broader economy and individual households.
Looking at the possible state-level effects of a more stringent ozone proposal in North Carolina, Ohio and Louisiana reveals a clearer picture of potential impacts on Americans’ lives. Kentucky, already at the forefront of a coal-related regulatory push, could see significant economic harm from a new ozone standard, according to a National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) report.
Posted July 31, 2014
A couple of new warning lights concerning EPA’s regulatory approach in proposed standards for power sector emissions as well as the anticipated standard for ozone. In both cases the agency appears poised to regulate without thoroughly reckoning potential impacts that could harm the economy and individual consumers.
First, there’s EPA’s effort to regulate power sector emissions – with carbon pollution guidelines proposed for existing power plants, on top of the already proposed guidelines for new electric utility generating units.
Howard Feldman, API’s director of regulatory and scientific affairs, testified at EPA field hearings this week that the agency’s proposals could result in higher energy costs, impacting the oil and natural gas industry’s international competitiveness and negatively affecting the broader economy. Feldman also warned that the proposals could set a precedent for EPA incursion into management of the power sector that’s beyond its authority under the Clean Air Act.
Posted December 12, 2012
Later this week EPA is expected to finalize standards for particulate matter 2.5. EPA could and should retain the existing standard. During a conference call with reporters API’s Howard Feldman, director of regulatory and scientific affairs, outlined the reasons:
- Certain costs and doubtful benefits
- Efficacy of the current standard
- Questionable scientific foundation for a new standard
- Poor coordination with other regulatory initiatives
Posted July 17, 2012
Posted June 7, 2012
Posted August 3, 2011
Posted July 15, 2011
Posted June 3, 2011
Posted June 2, 2011
Jane Van Ryan
Posted March 1, 2011