Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 09/09/2011 5:18:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It’s become a staple for Republicans on the 2012 campaign trail to slam the Environmental Protection Agency as a job-killing government regulator. But Rick Perry was bashing EPA—on the stump and in practice—long before it was cool.
As governor of Texas, Perry has engaged in an outright war against EPA for years. Of course, tangling with federal environmental regulators isn’t unusual in the Lone Star State, where the economy deeply depends on the oil industry. Three of the world’s five biggest oil companies are headquartered in Houston, and Texas consumes more fossil fuels and spews more pollution than any other state.
But by any measure, Perry took the fight to new extremes, escalating long-simmering regulatory tension into a symbolic state-federal showdown. He repeatedly issued high-profile rebukes to EPA, refusing to comply with regulations and daring the agency to crack down with punitive measures that he knew could blow up politically in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. He channeled Texas regulators’ difficulties with EPA into his own swaggering narrative of a state oppressed by the federal government; he occasionally even threatened secession. Perry’s moves pumped up his national profile, but, critics argue, they hurt not only his state’s air quality but also the pocketbooks of the oil and gas corporations that are the lifeblood of its economy.
As far back as 2006—when former Texas Gov. George W. Bush, hardly known as an environmental enforcer, was in the White House—EPA repeatedly warned Perry that Texas’s unique system of regulating industrial air pollution violated the 40-year-old Clean Air Act.
Federal law requires big polluters such as oil refiners to control emissions of dangerous contaminants in each unit of a polluting plant to receive an operating permit. Texas has a “flexible permit” process that issues permits to facilities that simply measure emissions levels for plants as a whole, allowing plant operators to put controls on some—but not all—polluting units.
Last year, after many warnings, EPA gave Texas a deadline of June 30 to submit a plan for a revised permitting process that complies with federal law or to surrender its pollution-licensing authority to Washington. Instead of working with Texas companies to satisfy the federal law, Perry’s Commission on Environmental Quality refused to meet the deadline. When EPA regulators were forced to step in and take over the permitting program, Perry grabbed headlines by charging that EPA was “willing to kill Texas jobs and derail one of the strongest industries in the country.”
Perry gained a political pop, but some industry officials in Texas grumbled about the practical results. Instead of getting pollution permits from a single state agency, they now must go through a new layer of regulation, applying separately for some permits from EPA, a process that experts say adds time and cost and can slow construction schedules.
The “flexible-permit” battle set the stage for the politically charged Texas-versus-EPA showdown over global warming. Earlier this year, EPA rolled out new regulations to control the carbon pollution that causes global warming. The agency was legally required to do so under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that carbon pollution endangers human health and is legally subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Not surprisingly, the controversial climate-change rules—which require factories, power plants, and oil refineries to use the best available technology to reduce carbon pollution—spurred a wave of pushback: 17 states and dozens of industry groups are suing the agency in a series of legal actions expected to drag on for years.
But most states took a standard precautionary measure: At the same time they are suing EPA, they are also working with the agency to find ways to comply with the rules. Then, if the states lose the lawsuits, they will already be on their way to meeting the new standards. States that do not comply with the rules—or need extra time to do so—will be subject to federal intervention, but those that opt for what experts call a “friendly FIP,” or federal implementation program, will dodge punitive measures and get help from EPA until they cut their pollution to permissible levels.
Texas alone opted for the unfriendly approach. It’s the only state that did not issue a plan for compliance—and Perry has made it clear that Texas has no intention of complying. The move was a blatant slap to the Obama administration—and once again gave Perry the national spotlight. Defying the climate rules offered him the perfect opportunity to loudly decry the science of global warming—which in his book Fed Up! he calls a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight”—and to slam EPA as a “rogue agency” with an “activist mind-set” that has “targeted Texas.” Such rhetoric is viral catnip to the tea party voters who could help catapult Perry to the 2012 presidential nomination.
Unfortunately, the Texas oil and gas industry, which has bone-deep ties to the Republican establishment and is far and away Perry’s biggest financial contributor, was once again left holding the bag. Industry officials declined to speak on the record about the practical effects of Perry’s battle with EPA, but a number of contractors who had consulted with companies as they struggled to deal with the fallout of the governor’s political fight said that although the industry certainly opposes stronger pollution regulation, the regulatory uncertainty created by Perry’s moves has made its situation worse.
Polluters in other states that are suing the EPA at least know that no matter what the outcome of the lawsuits, the agency won’t punish them later; in Texas, there is no such certainty—and without it, some companies have scaled back their decisions to build, consultants familiar with the industry’s thinking say.
“It threw Texas economics into a state of flux,” according to an energy and environmental consultant who has worked with major companies in the state but spoke on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.
“The practical reality is that when you have a standoff like this, you still have to be authorized, you still have to get the permits,” the consultant said. “While that’s all being worked out in the courts, industry has no choice but to do it or risk being shut down.… You have to act as though whoever’s got the most-stringent regulations—in this case, the EPA—is going to win. Because of this, there were plants that chose not to expand. It was a standoff, but a company risks being shut down by the more stringent standard. Nobody in my circle—the major oil and gas companies—was going to take that chance.”
Mathew Tejada, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, a nonprofit group dedicated to reducing pollution in the infamously smoggy city, put it more bluntly: “To make a political point about his opinion on global climate change, Governor Perry has actually made it harder for Texas industry.”
Perry’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Republican strategists say, however, that although Perry’s move may have inconvenienced some in Texas industry, it could still pay off politically, especially with tea party voters. “It absolutely robbed business of certainty, yes,” said Michael McKenna, a GOP strategist and an expert on energy policy and politics. “Business guys get really nervous when they get caught in the switches on this kind of thing.”
But McKenna pointed out the growing divide between two groups that were once inseparable—industry and the new breed of tea party Republicans—and said that Perry appears poised to keep the backing of Big Business while firing up tea party voters.
“Rick Perry’s jihad against EPA is driven by what’s good for Texas voters and consumers,” McKenna said, “not necessarily what’s good for industry.”
Texas has added 929,000 jobs since 2001, while California has lost approximately 635,000 manufacturing jobs in that same time, Stewart said.
Answering questions after his speech, Stewart told the story of Perry sending programmed cellphones to CEOs in California with a simple message: "If you're interested in growing your business, please call me. I'm here to help."
"They're doing something right down there," Stewart said of what he dubs the "Texas miracle." "Gov. Perry will go anywhere, any time, to try to recruit companies into Texas."
Perry has taken the state's regulatory process and managed it himself, Stewart said………
[CA Economic Development Corporation President Mark] Lascelles emphasized that it does no good to belabor California's regulatory environment.
"Unfortunately, we can't avoid it. We have to deal with it," he said. Speaker focuses on job creation
*************************
MONTANA: Legal gamesmanship threatens our energy future “Texas Gov. Rick Perry is able to boast about job growth under his watch, noting that over 265,000 jobs, or nearly 37 percent of the jobs created nationwide since the summer of 2009, have been created in the Lone Star state.
He credits this growth to a few simple conditions: low taxes, a regulatory climate that is fair and predictable, and a legal system that limits frivolous lawsuits. According to the Wall Street Journal, nearly one-fourth of the 70 companies that left California this year relocated to Texas.
When new or relocating companies and investors survey the landscape and consider Montana, what do they see? Well, when it comes to natural-resource development, the landscape looks risky.
Recent headlines highlight two major resource development projects slogging through endless legal and regulatory challenges. Investment flees this kind of uncertainty, so Montanans interested in the future economic stability of this state should be wary of the signals we send…” --- [relates short history of 2 outrageous examples] --
“The common experience for Tongue River Railroad and Tonbridge Power is this: Even if you play by the rules, even if you follow the letter of the law, even if you engage with the public during a planning process, even if you get formal approval from the regulatory authorities, you are certain to face organized opposition whose sole intent is to frustrate project development to the point of financial starvation….”
***********************
Perry environmental stance would transform EPA ....>>>>>Perry "approaches the issues from a very libertarian bent," said Jim DiPeso , policy director of Republicans for Environmental Protection. "The EPA would be in for some significant budget reduction. There would be no new intiatives, no regulatory programs that would be initated. There'd be litigation from environmental groups that believe he's not enforcing the Clean Air Act and Water Act as robustly as the law provides."
"Any regulatory programs would be really throttled back," he said. "He has shown no interest in climate policy at all. He doesn't accept the science."
With the governor's blessing, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott is challenging at least six EPA greenhouse gas-related regulations. The state's underlying argument: The fundamental finding that greenhouse gases are a public health threat is scientifically flawed.
The federal government is pushing "hastily enacted, cascading regulations" on states and businesses, Abbott argued in a June brief filed on behalf of nine states in federal court.
Perry's approach to energy, DiPeso said, "would be to produce more," rather than discourage the development of energy projects, such as coal plants, that emit greenhouse gases associated with global warming.
"In terms of energy, (Perry) would pursue what many Republicans call the 'all of the above' strategy, with more energy development offshore and onshore," DiPeso said. <<<<<
Don't be surprised if the attorney general jumps in after Perry slammed the rule for threatening Texas jobs and families and putting reliable, affordable electricity at risk. Late last week, 31 members of Congress from Texas, including eight Democrats, signed a letter to the White House asking for relief. The utility commission also filed objections with the EPA.
Texas officials and the EPA have been clashing over air pollution and environmental issues for the past decade. The conflict has deepened under the Obama administration as the EPA turned more aggressive and Perry sharpened his attacks on Washington.
I’m not sure what the game is but I’m not sure he intends to take his fight to the necessary conclusion. After all, he’s supported alternative energy manufacturing firms through TEF funds, grants, and tax breaks.
I just can’t believe he would support those industries then turn around and destroy them by forcing them to compete in a truly free market.
"ACORN called this their “proudest moment.”"
"these new laws will actually make it much harder for these individuals to purchase housing due to the fact that they, in many cases, are unable to qualify for traditional mortgage financing and builders and investors will now be less inclined to offer lease-options or ‘rent-to-own’ scenarios as a purchasing alternative under these new laws."
Gov. Rick Perry's Remarks Regarding Countrywide Financing
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
"...Today we are not only building upon the Enterprise Fund’s tremendous record of creating jobs, we are unveiling its crowning jewel. I am proud to announce that the state of Texas is investing $20 million from the Texas Enterprise Fund to help Countrywide Financial bring 7,500 additional jobs to Texas over the next 6 years. This is the largest job creation announcement in the United States since 2000 according to Site Selection Magazine, and proof that the Enterprise Fund is a key reason Texas is leading the nation to economic recovery. You can consider the Countrywide expansion to be “Exhibit A” as to why we need to continue to invest state dollars in the Texas Enterprise Fund..."
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10202/
Meanwhile...
"Perry began investing his considerably higher salary in land around Austin, getting in just before the housing boom sent Sun Belt real estate values skyrocketing. By 2007..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2773449/posts
Amazing the EPA didn't fine folks for the smoke coming from... The Great Texican Mortgage BBQ.
Yech...THAT sure pours cold water on my spark of interest in Perry...
But most states took a standard precautionary measure: At the same time they are suing EPA, they are also working with the agency to find ways to comply with the rules. Then, if the states lose the lawsuits, they will already be on their way to meeting the new standards. States that do not comply with the rules—or need extra time to do so—will be subject to federal intervention, but those that opt for what experts call a “friendly FIP,” or federal implementation program, will dodge punitive measures and get help from EPA until they cut their pollution to permissible levels.
This article should have had a barf alert. Considering that most manufactured goods contain carbon in one form or another, and that most industrial processes produce carbon dioxide, it is physically impossible to avoid carbon in manufacturing.
Thus, the only way to meet the standards is by reducing manufacturing output. States that do this while suing the EPA over the standards are committing economic suicide.
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
Yes. It is written from the LIBERAL government, EPA knows best bent (”swagger,” don’t you know) but it tells us a lot about this.
“Carbon pollution”?
Carbon dioxide is PLANT FOOD! These people are insane. Every living animal “pollutes” the air with every breath it exhales?
CO2 is at historically LOW levels, looking at the LONG-term makeup of the atmosphere. At least that’s what I remember from grade 8 science class.
Delusional control freaks.
The Rick Perry-ACORN connection explained: A primer for non-Texans
“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
—Albert Einstein
As a fellow Eagle Scout, Perry’s ACORN/Countrywide/Housing entanglements are very disappointing.
There is another kind of Republican who sees the election of 2012 as a tipping point for the nation — a do-or-die moment when we will either pull back from the precipice of debt and national decline or fall off the edge. This second brand of Republican is hoping that a candidate will emerge who can lay before the American people the nature of the challenge we face in a direct and forthright way. If a campaign is run and won on the need to reform our obese government, the new president will have a mandate to take the necessary steps once in office.
After Wednesday’s Republican debate, it seems that Mitt Romney represents the first group, and Rick Perry stands for the second. ………………”
In Texas Schools, Perry Shuns Federal Influence ………>>>When Secretary of Education Arne Duncan jabbed Mr. Perry on public schools in mid-August, it was only the latest skirmish between the governor and the Obama administration since late 2009, when Mr. Perry announced that the state would not sign on to common core-curriculum standards.<<<...
Trial lawyers prep for war on Perry America’s trial lawyers are getting ready to make the case against one of their biggest targets in years: Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
Among litigators, there is no presidential candidate who inspires the same level of hatred – and fear – as Perry, an avowed opponent of the plaintiffs’ bar who has presided over several rounds of tort reform as governor.
And if Perry ends up as the Republican nominee for president, deep-pocketed trial lawyers intend to play a central role in the campaign to defeat him.
That’s a potential financial boon to a president who has unsettled trial lawyers with his own rhetorical gestures in the direction of tort reform. A general election pitting Barack Obama and Perry could turn otherwise apathetic trial lawyers into a phalanx of pro-Obama bundlers and super PAC donors. …..”
Perry’s been taking the fight to D.C. for a long time.
Perry did stick to his guns on this.The MSM are appalled he does not believe in ‘climate science’.I wish Perry would say it is not climate science it is the proven (remember emails) fake global warming.
Perry wants a “level playing field” & an end to ethanol mandate (audio) "“I’d like to see a level playing field for all of the energy producers in this country,” Perry told reporters in Iowa tonight."
He was not.
"crowning jewel... Countrywide Financial"
--Governor Rick Perry"these new laws will actually make it much harder for these individuals to purchase housing due to the fact that they, in many cases, are unable to qualify for traditional mortgage financing and builders and investors will now be less inclined to offer lease-options or ‘rent-to-own’ scenarios as a purchasing alternative under these new laws.""Perry began investing his considerably higher salary in land around Austin, getting in just before the housing boom sent Sun Belt real estate values skyrocketing. By 2007..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
