The American Power Act - First Read (cont.) Renewable Energy

Posted on May 13, 2010 by Reed Rubinstein

The Power Act's Title I, Subtitle D, is titled "Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency."  In Section 1601, Congress states that "large-scale deployment of renewable energy and substantial improvement in energy efficiency" is critical to "improved energy security", among other things.  However, this part of the Power Act is actually very limited in scope. 

First, Section 1602 of the Power Act authorizes EPA to give allowances to power districts, public utilities, and electrical co-op participating in the Rural Utilities Service loan program to be used to fund no-interest loans to consumers for energy efficiency measures.  This section also creates a permanent funding mechanism for a  "national" nonprofit organization with "significant experience" in providing "advice in legal and regulatory matters affecting electric service and the environment" to provide "verification services."  Second, Section 1603 authorizes EPA to distribute emissions allowances (i.e., permission to consume energy) to State governments to offset their higher energy costs.  One-third of the allowances are to be divided among the States equally, one-third shall be distributed ratably based on population, and one-third distributed ratably based on energy consumption.  The allowances are to be used "exclusively" for energy efficiency purposes, deployment of alternative energy projects, funding "Smart Grid" programs, and interestingly, "Providing the non-Federal share of support" for surface transportation capital projects.

 

Tags: , , ,

EPA To States: "Pound Sand."

Posted on April 12, 2010 by Reed Rubinstein

Robert Verchick is EPA's Deputy Associate Administrator for Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI). Previously, he was a law professor and a board member of something called the “Center for Progressive Reform,” a far left “think-tank” favoring federal government control over pretty much every aspect of human existence.

EPA issues scores of rules every year for implementation by State environmental agencies.   State regulators, who have found EPA’s implementation cost estimates almost always substantially underestimate costs, and who must obtain State budgetary appropriations to pay for EPA mandates, therefore have asked EPA to come up with a “cost of rules formula” the State agencies may use to help develop accurate budgets. Verchick’s response:

Pound sand. 

According to the invaluable Inside EPA, Verchick addressed a March 25 Environmental Council of the States conference and reportedly said:  “I’m not sure, personally, that this cost of rules focus is serving your interest…” Furthermore, Verchick reportedly said it was not possible to isolate the cost of EPA’s rules in any event.   One can only hope Verchick's statements were somehow taken out of context, for Federal bureaucratic arrogance is generally not a terribly adaptive strategy for implementing policy.  In any event, given Verchick's well-documented antipathy to cost-estimating regulatory burdens, it is likely State environmental agencies and State taxpayers will continue to suffer from EPA’s irrational refusal to disclose its rules' true costs.  

Tags: , , ,