EPA Lawsuits Question Basis, Procedures Behind EPA’s “Endangerment Finding”

EPA’s Global Warming Juggernaut Challenged in Court

Lawsuits Question Basis, Procedures Behind EPA’s “Endangerment Finding
February 27, 2012

Washington, D.C., February 27, 2012 – EPA’s economically ruinous plans for regulating greenhouse gas emissions are being challenged in federal court this week by a broad array of states and private parties, including the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, and FreedomWorks.  A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday in a set of cases challenging EPA’s decision to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.  The court will also review a series of major EPA regulations based on that decision.

The petitioners argue that EPA acted arbitrarily and illegally in a number of respects:  it ignored the severe shortcomings of climate models; it illegally adopted the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; and it refused to reopen its proceedings in the wake of Climategate.  The agency also ignored the fact that its incredibly costly regulations will have no detectable impact on global temperature.  Despite their extraordinary economic impacts, their much-ballyhooed benefits will in fact amount to zero.

“The fact that the court is devoting two days to hearing these cases demonstrates the importance of these legal questions.  But from a political standpoint, there’s even more at stake,” said CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis.   “In 2010, after two decades of global warming advocacy, Congress declined to give EPA explicit authority to regulate greenhouse gases when Senate leaders pulled the plug on cap-and-trade legislation.  EPA’s insistence on going forward with its command-and-control agenda despite this defies both history and logic.”

Last year, EPA’s own Inspector General found that the agency based its 2009 “Endangerment Finding” (that emissions from greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare) on a flawed and inadequate assessment of climate science, and that EPA’s peer review methodology did not meet OMB requirements for highly influential scientific assessments.  (See EPA IG Report)

HERE for More

Advertisements

Blackouts Expected as Obama’s War on Fossil Fuels Heat Up

http://platform.twitter.com/widgets/hub.1324331373.html

Experts Discuss Obama’s War On Fossil Fuels — And Coming Blackouts

Energy experts discuss Obama’s war on fossil fuels and the potential for rolling blackouts all over the U.S. in the near future — due to EPAedicts.

Here

Evidence Southern Company Believes CO2 is Poisonous

“Southern Company supports carbon capture and storage as a critical tool
in addressing greenhouse gases and is proud of our efforts to bring this important technology
toward commercial viability.”

Karl R. Moor, Vice President and Associate
General Counsel of Southern Company

http://txccsa.org/publications/eei/EEI_Testimony_9-30-08.pdf

Global Warming For Southern Company

Southern Company, Mississippi Power Company,

The EPA is an ARM of the United Nations

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/the_un_states_envrio_protection_agency.pdf

THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler
SPPI ORIGINAL PAPER ♦ May 26, 2011

2

THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC ………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE …………………………………………………….. 5
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET ……………………………………………………………………………. 6
MISSION CREEP …………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES ………………………….. 7
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS ……………………………………………………………………… 8
STRATUS CONSULTING INC. …………………………………………………………………………………… 13
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY ………………………………………………………………………….. 14
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS ………………………………………………………………. 16
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS ……….. 18
CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 19
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3
THE UNITED NATIONS STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
by Dennis Ambler | May 26, 2011
THE EPA STAKE IN THE IPCC
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
The EPA mounted a solid defence of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia after the “Climategate” scandal that broke just before the UNFCC COP 15 at Copenhagen in 2009. Their main purpose was to defend the IPCC because of the major damage done to its credibility by the e-mail revelations, and thus in turn damaged the flawed justification for the EPA endangerment finding. The EPA has a web page purporting to show Myths and Facts relating to “climate science”, in defence of their rejection of petitions against the Endangerment finding.
They were adamant that the science was not flawed or that the scientific process had been compromised. They had “carefully reviewed the e-mails” and found “no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.” They insist that they have relied on “major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science and that this approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.”
They were still promoting the scientific consensus in this EPA press release in July last year:
“America’s Climate Choices,” a report from the National Academy of Sciences and the most recent assessment of the full body of scientific literature on climate change, along with the recently released “State of the Climate” report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration both fully support the conclusion that climate change is real and poses significant risk to human and natural systems. The consistency among these and previously issued assessments only serves to strengthen EPA’s conclusion.”
In view of the rejection by the EPA of challenges to their endangerment finding, why would we be surprised to find that they have a long-term stake in the IPCC’s climate models and in the continuance of the IPCC itself.
4
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports. In fact the Panel for America’s Climate Choices contains remarkably few climate scientists, but does have many political activists, including the President of the Pew Centre and the CEO’s of WWF and Environmental Defense.
The small number of climate scientists on the panel are established IPCC authors who are also activists in support of carbon dioxide control. The “State of the Climate” report is critiqued here.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA. The president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Eileen Claussen, is a former assistant secretary of state for Oceans, Environment, and Science and a former Special Assistant to President Clinton and Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs at the National Security Council. She has also served as Chairman of the United Nations Multilateral Montreal Protocol Fund.
Ms. Claussen was Director of Atmospheric Programs at the EPA where she was responsible for activities related to the alleged depletion of the ozone layer and Title IV of the Clean Air Act. She is also a member of the Pew Oceans Commission.
Lisa Jackson is a great fan of the Pew Centre and these quotes are from a copy of a speech to them, which is on the EPA website:
“Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks at the Pew Center for Climate Change, As Prepared” 25/06/2009
“Our hosts at Pew have some of the most talented and committed people in the field, from President Claussen, to the Regional Policy Coordinators doing the work on the ground.”
“I speak for EPA when I say that we’re counting on your partnership to help us advance the urgent environmental issues of the day, particularly climate change.”
“But I speak for myself when I say I’m counting on your help – on your counsel, your hard work, and your understanding.”
“I can’t think of a higher calling than coming back here to work with you to address the urgent, ongoing and in many cases, long overdue environmental issues our nation faces.”
The consistency occurs because many of the same groups and often the same people are represented on these various panels and their task is to sell the IPCC reports.
There is a long history of association between the Pew Centre and the EPA.
5
She met with Eileen Claussen in closed session on October 20th 2010, in Washington, maybe looking for counsel on how to handle the challenges to her policies.
Jackson is a gung ho regulator and is well-practised in emissions legislation, as former Vice President of the Executive Board of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a program organized by northeast states to develop a regional cap-and-trade program.
She was hubristically bullish about her first year in office, on the EPA website:
“During my first year as Administrator, the EPA finalized an endangerment finding on greenhouse gases, proposed the first national rules to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions under the Clean Air Act and initiated a national reporting system for greenhouse-gas emissions. All of these advances signaled historic progress in the fight against climate change.”
“Climate change must be considered and integrated into all aspects of our work. While the EPA stands ready to help Congress craft strong, science-based climate legislation that addresses the spectrum of issues, we will assess and develop regulatory tools as warranted under law using the authority of the Clean Air Act.”
THE BIG MYTH – THE EPA AS DEFENDERS OF THE PEOPLE
The EPA presents itself as a non-aligned body, working in the public interest and objectively taking on-board scientific reports, in order to protect the American people from the “air pollutant” CO2.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials, (non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding. Bizarrely, the EPA website says, “The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.”
They seem to forget the widespread integration into the IPCC reports of non-peer reviewed papers from NGO’s such as WWF and Greenpeace and the embedding of NGO’s into the IPCC process. They seem to forget the undue influence of a small core of scientists on the IPCC reports. The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
It has in fact, a major stake in the IPCC process, as former EPA officials,
(non-scientists), have been heavily involved in the IPCC reports, with funding from the EPA. Those former employees are also consultants to EPA and have major input to their regulatory findings, including the endangerment finding.
6
In a Time magazine interview on Friday April 2nd, Lisa Jackson was again “defending the science”:
“The biggest criticism that I’ve leveled – and I’ve done it in my hearing testimony – is that what the current efforts do is overrule scientists on a scientific finding. Congress is essentially passing a law that says, ‘We, a bunch of lawmakers, have decided what the science is on this issue,’” Jackson said.
The trouble is that the major input is not from climate scientists but from policy wonks and political science graduates, including some who publish “scientific” papers. Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
EPA AS DEFENDER OF THE PLANET
Administrator Jackson is a woman on a mission; to save the planet. In a run of 150 speeches from 2009, she is protecting, saving or improving the planet, some 65 times. Her speeches are high on rhetoric but low on science, as in this hotch potch of familiar distortions in “Remarks on the Endangerment Finding on Greenhouse Gases”, December 7th 2009: “Polar ice caps crumbling into the oceans, changing migratory patterns of animals and broader ranges for deadly diseases, historic droughts, more powerful storms, and disappearing coastlines.”
She seeks to imbue the EPA with the same sense of mission and this address for EPA employees sets out her international agenda:
TO: All EPA Employees
“Today our world faces unprecedented environmental challenges ranging from making sure our air, water and land are healthy to facing down the growing threat of climate change. At the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, it is part of our mission to confront these challenges both at home and around the world.
While we have a long history of international collaboration on numerous global environmental issues, our bilateral and multilateral partnerships have taken on a renewed significance. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation is one of those vital partnerships. Since 1994, the Commission has been focused on developing innovative, collaborative solutions to reduce environmental impacts and promote mutual prosperity.
The extensive reliance by the EPA on non-scientists flies in the face of their claims that the endangerment finding is based on the work of thousands of climate scientists.
Lisa Jackson is also pursuing an international agenda as she describes again on the EPA website.
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
7
Today at the CEC’s annual meeting, I will publicly announce EPA’s international priorities.”
The Agency already has around 20,000 employees and an annual budget of $10 billion, but it seems Lisa Jackson wants to expand this burgeoning behemoth even more.
MISSION CREEP
“It is our vision that by working with global partners we can advance our shared priorities, including adapting to climate change, ensuring national security, facilitating commerce, promoting sustainable development, protecting vulnerable populations and engaging diplomatically around the world.
Aren’t those the tasks normally entrusted to elected representatives?
BUILDING STRONG ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONS AND LEGAL STRUCTURES
Countries need adequate governmental structures to enforce environmental protections.
The EPA will work with countries such as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
She was of course warmly welcomed at the UNFCCC in Copenhagen 2009 where she grandstanded the new EPA Endangerment ruling on greenhouse-gas emissions. The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
The EPA will work with countries such
as India, Ghana, Kenya and Brazil to develop and support the promotion of good governance, improve judicial and legal structures and design the regulatory systems necessary for effective environmental protection around the world.
The EPA is seen by the UN and its supporters as the Trojan horse for controlling carbon dioxide emissions in the US, leaving the way open for global control via the UN. The Agency’s considerable involvement with the IPCC and the UNFCCC on many levels gives strong support to that agenda.
8
EPA FUNDING FOR IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
The input of the EPA into the IPCC reports is demonstrated by the fact that they provide funding for one of the core climate models, MAGICC/SCENGEN, a coupled gas-cycle/climate model (Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change) that drives a spatial climate-change SCENario GENerator (SCENGEN). MAGICC version 6 is currently in use. The companion product, SCENGEN, is a global and regional climate change scenario generator.
The widely-used MAGICC model has been one of the primary models used by IPCC since 1990, to produce projections of future global-mean temperature and sea level rise. You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the AR4 conclusions. “Changes have been made to MAGICC to ensure, as nearly as possible, consistency with the IPCC AR4.”
The MAGICC manual says that “considerable input has come from the EPA, in that “Versions 4.1 and 5.3 (and intermediate versions) were funded largely by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency through Stratus Consulting Company. In this regard, Jane Leggett (formerly EPA, now Library of Congress) and Joel Smith (formerly EPA and now Stratus) deserve special thanks for their enthusiastic support over many years.” Additionally it says that “the CMIP3/AR4 multi-model data set is supported by the Office of Science, U.S. Department of Energy.”
Anything that doesn’t agree with their pre-determined conclusions is rejected:
“-1.8 forcing value as a lower bound (1.1 W/m2 below the best estimate) would lead to extremely low total historical anthropogenic forcing unless compensated by a large underestimate in some positive forcing term, and we consider this highly unlikely. We therefore retain +/-0.4 for the uncertainty range for indirect aerosol forcing.”
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
You can download a user’s manual for version 5.3, where they describe how they had to change the model to fit the
AR4 conclusions.
Some of the inputs are known to be false, yet they still use them, for example, they have always used a figure of 1% annual increase in CO2 levels, when they have actually been 0.5 to 0.7%.
9
Notice the acknowledgement: “Development supported by: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency”. This was in May 2008.
Although four separate bodies are shown as contributors to the model, implying independent scientific agreement, in fact all are connected via the IPCC, and by current or former positions at CRU and UEA, including model originator, Tom Wigley, at NCAR, who is a former Director of CRU. At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
The CRU is of course the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, shown separately above to imply two independent bodies. NCAR and Stratus Consulting are both located in Boulder, Colorado.
MAGICC and SCENGEN contain the templates that produce the colourful global pictures showing a heating planet. Anyone can obtain the program and use the pre-installed databases to produce “new research” for any region in the world.
Here are some slides from a UNFCCC Climate Model Training guide:
At least five of those mentioned on the front page are significant names in the CRU e-mails, so it is to be expected that the EPA would seek to minimise the whole affair.
10
Dr Kevin Trenberth, Head of Climate Analysis at NCAR and a major figure in the IPCC, expressed his concerns about climate models in a Nature Science Blog post in June 2007:
 “There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess.”
 None of the models used by IPCC are initialized to the
observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate.
 In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
 Moreover, the starting climate state in several of the models may depart significantly from the real climate owing to model errors.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
These are damning indictments by a leading light of the IPCC and the US climate community, throwing major doubts on the modelling claims of the IPCC.
11
In 2007, Professor Lenny Smith, a statistician at the London School of Economics, warned about the “naïve realism” of current climate modelling. In a New Scientist interview he said, “Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
Dial a Climate:
End result?
“Our models are being over-interpreted and misinterpreted. Over-interpretation of models is already leading to poor financial decision-making. We need to drop the pretence that they are nearly perfect.”
When we hear the familiar phrase, “new research shows” it means that someone has done another model run with different parameters and yet again “things are worse than we thought”.
12
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff. She coordinates “CRS expertise on climate change, and leads responses on climate change science, federal funding, international cooperation and other topics, including China’s policies and performance”.
Leggett worked for the EPA for more than 15 years, having been director of the Climate Change Division from 1995-2001 during Carol Browner’s tenure and senior advisor on climate change mitigation and risk analysis to the EPA from 2001-2006. She was a convening lead author of the 1992 IPCC special report on emissions scenarios to 2100, (SRES). At EPA, she represented the U.S. Government on climate change at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCCC) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (OECD).
Jane A. Leggett is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
Jane A. Leggett, who is mentioned in the MAGGIC manual, is currently a Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy for the Congressional Research Service (CRS), which serves Members of Congress and their staff.
[She] is a political scientist, not a climate scientist, with a Masters in City and Regional Planning (MCRP) and a B.A. in Political Science.
13
STRATUS CONSULTING INC.
Also mentioned is Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus Consulting, who has been an IPCC author since 1998. Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science, such as the EPA in reaching their endangerment finding. This is a list of his involvement in the climate change agenda.
 Coordinating Lead Author for the synthesis chapter on climate change impacts for the IPCC Third Assessment Report, TAR.
 Lead Author for IPCC AR4 WG II Ch. 19 Assessing Key Vulnerabilities and the Risk from Climate Change
 Contributing Author AR4 WG II Ch.17: Assessment of Adaptation Practices, Options, Constraints and Capacity
 Lead Author on the Summary for the Policy Makers Report for both the Third and Fourth Assessment Reports
 Lead author for the U.S. National Assessment on climate change impacts and technical coordinator on vulnerability and adaptation for the U.S. Country Studies Program.
 Co-ordinator of the Pew Center Global Climate Change series.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy. He put his name to the February 2011 “Scientists’ Statement on the Clean Air Act” carried on the Democrat website. The letter repeated the EPA statement about the scientific evidence, quoting the same sources:
“The scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests that climate change poses a clear threat to public health. Numerous scientific studies, including the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s 2009 report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States and the National Academy of Sciences’ report, America’s Climate Choices, show that if heat-trapping emissions continue unabated, global warming is likely to cause more extreme heat in our cities, severe water shortages, loss of species, hazards to coasts
Stratus claims Joel Smith is a Nobel Prize winner because of the award in 2007 to IPCC and Al Gore. He is in charge of their climate change division and is another example of non-scientists being portrayed as scientists, by those who present the IPCC as the authoritative voice of climate science.
Joel Smith is another political scientist, not a climate scientist; he has a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Public Policy.
14
from sea level rise, and extreme weather. The economic and social costs of such impacts are potentially calamitous.
The EPA must be allowed to fulfill its responsibilities and take action to regulate global warming emissions under the Clean Air Act. This science-based law has prevented 400,000 premature deaths and hundreds of millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease during the 40 years since it was first passed—all without diminishing economic growth.”
Smith worked for the EPA from 1984 to 1992, where he was the deputy director of the Climate Change Division, an analyst for oceans and water regulations, and a special assistant to the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation.
He was a co-editor of EPA’s Report to Congress: “The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States,” published in 1989. He has written on climate change impacts and adaptation issues for the U.S. Country Studies Program, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Office of Technology Assessment, the Electric Power Research Institute, the World Bank, the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Environment Programme, and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. He has produced papers on Technology Transfer to Developing Nations for the UNFCCC.
Stratus has carried out work in Africa for USAID and the U.S. Country Studies Program “to assist West and Central African nations in the design and development of climate change assessments.”
Smith has co-published with scientists such as the late Stephen Schneider of Stanford and Tom Wigley of NCAR, including this poster presentation with Wigley in 2005 on the merits of MAGICC-SCENGEN, Using Climate Model Output to Understand and Adapt to Climate Change Joel B. Smith. Stratus Consulting Inc., Boulder, Colorado, Tom M, L Wigley, National Canter for Atmospheric Research. Boulder, Colorado.
It was part of an assessment of the Aspen Ski and Snow Industry, co-ordinated by the Aspen Global Change Institute, which is funded by NASA, NOAA, The National Science Foundation (NSF), The Department of Energy (DOE), The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation and International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP), a UN body.
EPA – ENVIRONMENTAL PALS AGENCY
Stratus Consulting Inc. has been built into a sizeable company on the back of extensive consultancy work for the EPA and other agencies, which must run into several hundred million dollars. “The company has been awarded 942 government contracts since 1999. Many, but not all, involved work for either NOAA, the EPA or the Justice Department. From 1999 to 2007, Stratus Consulting pulled in an average of 64 contracts per year. From 2008 to 2010, the average per year nearly doubled — to 121 per year. So far, the company has generated only
15
three contracts in 2011”. They received the second-largest amount of money, $22.73 million, from the contracts stemming from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill.
In 2007, they picked up a five year contract worth $39.4 million. “Stratus Consulting has worked with EPA on climate change issues, specifically greenhouse gas emissions, since 1996, said Joel Smith, vice president at Stratus. “We’ve been looking at energy efficiency programs within a number of states,” he said. “We’ve also looked at consequences of climate change and done work on the science of climate change.”
But they are not climate scientists.
They describe themselves as assisting in crafting federal guidance and providing analytical support for regulatory development at the U.S. EPA for the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and global climate change. They have extensive input into the EPA web sites and into their data management processes:
 EPA home page
 EPA’s environmental education web sites
 EPA’s High School Environmental Center
 Data Quality Act/EPA Information Quality Guidelines
 Information Quality Guidelines
 Critical evaluation of EPA audit regimes
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan
 Business rules to support EPA’s Facility Registry System
 EPA’s Quality System
 EPA Integrated error correction process
 EPA Data Quality Strategic Plan.
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
Joel Smith and a Stratus colleague edited the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Some of the other Stratus staff who are also heavily involved with the EPA and other agencies are shown here, there are many more:
Charles N. Herrick, Interim Chief Executive Officer of Stratus Consulting, Inc. is a former Associate Director of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Assistant Director of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program, (acid rain). He has also been a senior analyst with NOAA’s Office of the Chief Scientist,
It is no wonder that the website says so strongly that “the science is unequivocal,” As major content contributors to the website, Stratus are simply defending their EPA contracts.
16
a position recently revived by NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco, to bring in an “acid oceans” scientist.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Lauraine G. Chestnut is an economist and a contributing Pew Centre author with Joel Smith and David Mills to a 2010 paper “U.S. Market Consequences of Global Climate Change”. She has served on EPA’s Science Advisory Board’s Advisory Council on Clean Air Compliance Analysis.
Robert D. Rowe, Stratus Chairman, is an economist and has been a consultant member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board.
Leland Deck, Managing economist. Economic benefits analyses for EPA air regulations, air pollution analyses for the IPCC, the California Air Resources Board, (CARB) and other government bodies. A former senior economist with the EPA, he has a PhD in economics, an MA in economics and a BS in geology.
EPA FUNDING FOR OTHER IPCC SCIENTISTS
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She was a member in 2010, of the NAS/NRC panel, “Toward a New Era of Climate Change Science: America’s Climate Choices Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change”, with Pew’s Eileen Claussen, which EPA quotes as one of the validations for their rejection of petitions against Endangerment Finding.
She is currently involved in eight government programs, including this one funded by the EPA in conjunction with Stratus Consulting, entitled Impactful Communication of EPA’s Climate Change Research. She was an IPCC author for AR4 and was invited as Lead Author, Coastal Systems (Chapter 5) of WG2, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (withdrawn for personal reasons). Contributing Author, Coastal Systems chapter of WG2, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
She is the Review Editor 2009-2011, for Chapter 1 of the IPCC Special Report on “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.”
Susanne Moser is not a climate scientist and has a PhD and an MA in Geography.
Charles N. Herrick is another political scientist, not a climate scientist, he has a PhD in Public Policy, an MA in Political Theory and a BA in Political Science but he “serves as a peer reviewer on several NAS and USGCRP panels.”
Susanne Moser, is a former NCAR scientist, (Geography) and now a private consultant, she is a committed activist and is a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
17
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding:
“At a Senate hearing this morning, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson defended her agency’s recent finding that carbon is a pollutant and minimized the role that data from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change played in that decision.
Jackson defended the IPCC data as still worthwhile, while also arguing that the EPA relied on other data, not just the IPCC’s, for the finding. She refused at one point to directly answer whether the IPCC still represented the best data in climate change science.”
Yet she is contradicted by her own documents:
Endangerment Findings Technical Support document
This document provides technical support for the endangerment analysis concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that may be addressed under the Clean Air Act.
The conclusions here and the information throughout this document are primarily drawn from the assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.”
This document itself does not convey any judgment or conclusion regarding the question of whether GHGs may be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, as this decision is ultimately left to the judgment of the Administrator.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management, although there are a couple of chemists, engineers and one meteorologist. Some are also IPCC authors and many are involved in the production of the proposed regulations, for example:
There is no way that the EPA is going to criticise the IPCC when so much of its output comes from IPCC authors working as consultants to the EPA, but still Lisa Jackson denies that the IPCC forms a major part of their endangerment finding.
The EPA authors of the Endangerment Technical Support Document are mainly economists and environmental policy specialists, with qualifications like Masters in International Affairs or Public Policy and Management.
18
Melissa Weitz is an environmental protection specialist in EPA’s Climate Change Division, within the Office of Air and Radiation.
“Her areas of work include rulemaking for the proposed mandatory greenhouse gas reporting rule, offsets protocols and policy analysis, and the national greenhouse gas inventory.”
She has a B.S. in Animal Science and a Master’s degree in Energy and Environmental Policy.
David Chalmers has “managed research, analysis and communication efforts on adaptation and ocean acidification and provided technical, analytic and management support to coastal adaptation projects funded through EPA’s Climate Ready Estuaries program.” He has also “produced key elements of EPA’s Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act. He has an MA in International Affairs and a B.A. in Environmental Science.
EPA AUTHORS OF THE TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT WHO ARE ALSO IPCC AUTHORS
Darrell Winner, who is acting Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment at EPA and a former National Program Director for Global Change Research at EPA. He was a member of IPCC Working Group II, AR4 Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Appendix III: Reviewer of the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report. He has a Ph.D in Environmental Engineering Science and a B.S in Chemical Engineering.
Leif Hockstad, another “environmental engineer” with EPA, was a COP-15 negotiator and a Lead author of the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Bill Irving is Chief of the Program Integration Branch of EPA’s Climate Change Division and a “technical expert” on the United States delegations to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He has been with the EPA since 1997 and was a co-ordinating Lead Author of the IPCC Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Mr. Irving holds a Bachelor’s degree from Queen’s University in Kingston, Canada, and a Master’s degree in International Affairs from Columbia University.
Dina Kruger is the current Director of the Climate Change Division at EPA. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Washington, and a Master’s degree from the Energy and Resources Group at the University of California, Berkeley. She was the presiding officer for the Proposed Rulemaking for EPA’s Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act, Monday, May 18, 2009. Kruger was a Review editor for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories.
Lisa Hanle was another Lead Author for the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, along with another eleven EPA employees.
In order to add gravitas, the document has Federal Reviewers, but again they are not all climate scientists, although they are IPCC authors. Some are members of the U.S. Global Change
19
Research Program and some are members of the panel on America’s Climate Choices, which are the bodies in which the EPA places so much faith and which, according to Lisa Jackson, form the basis of the science behind the EPA Endangerment finding. By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
In particular we have these big hitters in the climate debate, as reviewers of the Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document.
Thomas Karl, director of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. He has been quoted as saying:
“Internationally, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), World Meteorological Organization (WMO), and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), is the most senior and authoritative body providing scientific advice to global policy makers.”
He was a member of the Committee on America’s Climate Choices until his new appointment.
Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA, and contributing editor of the RealClimate blog. IPCC Lead Author and modeller.
Susan Solomon, NOAA Senior Scientist, Co-chair, IPCC Working Group 1, 2002-2008. She was recently challenged about the Inspector General’s report relating to FOA requests concerning the IPCC. She is a member of America’s Climate Choices Panel.
CONCLUSION
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
The major involvement of IPCC authors in the process, the extensive use of contractors who are former EPA employees and IPCC authors, the use of reviewers who are also IPCC major players and members of the US scientific panels quoted by the EPA, all leads to an incestuous “group
By acting as reviewers they are effectively validating their own work.
It is plain to see that the claim by Lisa Jackson that the Endangerment finding is based on sound science is false, when in fact it is overtly political and the culmination of many years of manoeuvering by the EPA. We find that “thousands of climate scientists”, narrows down to the same familiar cohorts, supported by economists and political graduates, who then acquire the status of “climate scientists” and are often quoted as such.
20
think” situation, which has no place in the determination of public policy on energy and the
economy.
Cover photo of EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announcing
that greenhouse-gas emissions pose a danger to public health,
as posted on nydailynews.com. Background photo of the
United Nations flag from topnews.

Kemper County Coal – FRAUD

John Casey Mentions Kemper County by Name on the Radio this Morning.

Interview with Kipp Greggory on 104.9fm Gulf Coast Morning

http://www.newsradio1049fm.com/player/?art=B4L&tra=on%20demand&omu=http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/30338/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/30338/1695/richmedia/INTERVIEW_-_20110901_-_JohnCasey_-_Agenda21AndGlobalWarming.mp3?CCOMRRMID=21370730&CPROG=RICHMEDIA&MARKET=BILOXI-MS&NG_FORMAT=&NG_ID=&OR_NEWSFORMAT=&OWNER=1695&SERVER_NAME=wbuv-fm.admin.clearchannel.com&SITE_ID=1695&STATION_ID=WBUV-FM&TRACK=

NASA Assisted Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong

NASA Study: Global Warming Alarmists Wrong.

New study that may proves global-warming alarmists have been wrong all along.

Data from NASA’s Terra satellite covering the period 2000 through 2011 shows that when the earth’s climate heats up, the atmosphere appears to be better able to channel the heat to outer space.

The satellite data call into question the computer models favored by global warming believers and may put to rest controversy over the discrepancy between the computer models and actual meteorological readings.

Co-author of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama’s Earth System Science Center, said in a press release, “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

In an Op-Ed in Forbes, senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute James M. Taylor, said, “In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth’s atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space.

“Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth’s atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space that the alarmist computer models predict.”

The new research further shows that not only is more energy released to space than had been theorized, but also that the energy is released at an earlier point in a cycle of warming than previously documented.

In fact, the new data reveal, energy is discharged beginning at a point about three months before a cycle peaks. “At the peak,” Spencer said, “satellites show energy being lost while climate models show energy still being gained.”

The research was published in the journal Remote Sensing.

Not Heeding the Warnings From Other Energy Companies

Why is Mississippi ignoring the warnings from other energy companies?  Others have determined that CCS fails to make economic sense at this point in time.  Is this the deal Haley Barbour made to gain  support for his now scrapped presidential run?  The residents of Mississippi will pay for this error forever because they have now paved the way for Cap and Trade to embark. There is no going back because there is
NO RISK TO MISSISSIPPI POWER COMPANY BECAUSE WE ARE PAYING FOR IT, NOT THEM!!!
————————————————————————————————————————————–
AEP Places Carbon Capture Commercialization On Hold, Citing Uncertain Status Of Climate Policy, Weak Economy

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 14, 2011 – American Electric Power (NYSE: AEP) is terminating its cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of Energy and placing its plans to advance carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) technology to commercial scale on hold, citing the current uncertain status of U.S. climate policy and the continued weak economy as contributors to the decision.

“We are placing the project on hold until economic and policy conditions create a viable path forward,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and chief executive officer. “With the help of Alstom, the Department of Energy and other partners, we have advanced CCS technology more than any other power generator with our successful two-year project to validate the technology. But at this time it doesn’t make economic sense to continue work on the commercial-scale CCS project beyond the current engineering phase.

“We are clearly in a classic ‘which comes first?’ situation,” Morris said. “The commercialization of this technology is vital if owners of coal-fueled generation are to comply with potential future climate regulations without prematurely retiring efficient, cost-effective generating capacity. But as a regulated utility, it is impossible to gain regulatory approval to recover our share of the costs for validating and deploying the technology without federal requirements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions already in place. The uncertainty also makes it difficult to attract partners to help fund the industry’s share.”

In 2009, AEP was selected by the Department of Energy (DOE) to receive funding of up to $334 million through the Clean Coal Power Initiative to pay part of the costs for installation of a commercial-scale CCS system at AEP’s Mountaineer coal-fueled power plant in New Haven, W.Va. The system would capture at least 90 percent of the carbon dioxide (CO2) from 235 megawatts of the plant’s 1,300 megawatts of capacity. The captured CO2, approximately 1.5 million metric tons per year, would be treated and compressed, then injected into suitable geologic formations for permanent storage approximately 1.5 miles below the surface.

Plans were for the project to be completed in four phases, with the system to begin commercial operation in 2015. AEP has informed the DOE that it will complete the first phase of the project (front-end engineering and design, development of an environmental impact statement and development of a detailed Phase II and Phase III schedule) but will not move to the second phase.

DOE’s share of the cost for completion of the first phase is expected to be approximately $16 million, half the expenses that qualify under the DOE agreement.

AEP and partner Alstom began operating a smaller-scale validation of the technology in October 2009 at the Mountaineer Plant, the first fully-integrated capture and storage facility in the world. That system captured up to 90 percent of the CO2 from a slipstream of flue gas equivalent to 20 megawatts of generating capacity and injected it into suitable geologic formations for permanent storage approximately 1.5 miles below the surface. The validation project, which received no federal funds, was closed as planned in May after meeting project goals. Between October 2009 and May 2011, the life of the validation project, the CCS system operated more than 6,500 hours, captured more than 50,000 metric tons of CO2 and permanently stored more than 37,000 metric tons of CO2.

“The lessons we learned from the validation project were incorporated into the Phase I engineering for the commercial-scale project,” Morris said.

American Electric Power is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. AEP ranks among the nation’s largest generators of electricity, owning nearly 38,000 megawatts of generating capacity in the U.S. AEP also owns the nation’s largest electricity transmission system, a nearly 39,000-mile network that includes more 765-kilovolt extra-high voltage transmission lines than all other U.S. transmission systems combined. AEP’s transmission system directly or indirectly serves about 10 percent of the electricity demand in the Eastern Interconnection, the interconnected transmission system that covers 38 eastern and central U.S. states and eastern Canada, and approximately 11 percent of the electricity demand in ERCOT, the transmission system that covers much of Texas. AEP’s utility units operate as AEP Ohio, AEP Texas, Appalachian Power (in Virginia and West Virginia), AEP Appalachian Power (in Tennessee), Indiana Michigan Power, Kentucky Power, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Southwestern Electric Power Company (in Arkansas, Louisiana and east Texas). AEP’s headquarters are in Columbus, Ohio.

This report made by American Electric Power and its Registrant Subsidiaries contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Although AEP and each of its Registrant Subsidiaries believe that their expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, any such statements may be influenced by factors that could cause actual outcomes and results to be materially different from those projected. Among the factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are: the economic climate and growth in, or contraction within, AEP’s service territory and changes in market demand and demographic patterns; inflationary or deflationary interest rate trends; volatility in the financial markets, particularly developments affecting the availability of capital on reasonable terms and developments impairing AEP’s ability to finance new capital projects and refinance existing debt at attractive rates; the availability and cost of funds to finance working capital and capital needs, particularly during periods when the time lag between incurring costs and recovery is long and the costs are material; electric load and customer growth; weather conditions, including storms, and AEP’s ability to recover significant storm restoration costs through applicable rate mechanisms; available sources and costs of, and transportation for, fuels and the creditworthiness and performance of fuel suppliers and transporters; availability of necessary generating capacity and the performance of AEP’s generating plants; AEP’s ability to recover Indiana Michigan Power’s Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 restoration costs through warranty, insurance and the regulatory process; AEP’s ability to recover regulatory assets and stranded costs in connection with deregulation; AEP’s ability to recover increases in fuel and other energy costs through regulated or competitive electric rates; AEP’s ability to build or acquire generating capacity, including the Turk Plant, and transmission line facilities (including the ability to obtain any necessary regulatory approvals and permits) when needed at acceptable prices and terms and to recover those costs (including the costs of projects that are cancelled) through applicable rate cases or competitive rates; new legislation, litigation and government regulation, including requirements for reduced emissions of sulfur, nitrogen, mercury, carbon, soot or particulate matter and other substances or additional regulation of fly ash and similar combustion products that could impact the continued operation and cost recovery of AEP’s plants; timing and resolution of pending and future rate cases, negotiations and other regulatory decisions (including rate or other recovery of new investments in generation, distribution and transmission service and environmental compliance); resolution of litigation (including AEP’s dispute with Bank of America); AEP’s ability to constrain operation and maintenance costs; AEP’s ability to develop and execute a strategy based on a view regarding prices of electricity, natural gas and other energy-related commodities; changes in the creditworthiness of the counterparties with whom AEP has contractual arrangements, including participants in the energy trading market; actions of rating agencies, including changes in the ratings of debt; volatility and changes in markets for electricity, natural gas, coal, nuclear fuel and other energy-related commodities; changes in utility regulation, including the implementation of electric security plans and related regulation in Ohio and the allocation of costs within regional transmission organizations, including PJM and SPP; accounting pronouncements periodically issued by accounting standard-setting bodies; the impact of volatility in the capital markets on the value of the investments held by AEP’s pension, other postretirement benefit plans and nuclear decommissioning trust and the impact on future funding requirements; prices and demand for power that AEP generates and sells at wholesale; changes in technology, particularly with respect to new, developing or alternative sources of generation; and other risks and unforeseen events, including wars, the effects of terrorism (including increased security costs), embargoes and other catastrophic events.

http://www.aep.com/newsroom/newsreleases/?id=1704

Brandon Presley: Consumers lost in Mississippi Power’s planned Kemper County plant | Better MS Report

Brandon Presley: Consumers lost in Mississippi Power’s planned Kemper County plant | Better MS Report.

From Better Mississippi Report:

JACKSON (Tuesday, July 6, 2010) – Public Service Commissioner Brandon Presley says consumers lost in Mississippi Power Co.’s planned Kemper County coal plant because the utility doesn’t have to guarantee the technology behind the project will ever work.

Mississippi Power’s plant, the first of its kind in the world, will use a new technology that converts a soft coal called lignite into a gas to fuel turbines and create electricity. The concept is high risk because no one can guarantee that the technology to be used in the plant will work.

Presley said Gov. Haley Barbour and U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu sent letters asking for support of the Mississippi Power plant. But Presley voted in April and May against forcing Mississippi Power ratepayers to finance the plant.

“I received letters urging me to support the project from everyone from Gov. Barbour to Steven Chu, secretary of energy in the Obama administration,” said Presley, who represents the Northern District on the three-member PSC.

“If they thought it was such a good project, why didn’t they find a way to pay for it rather than forcing Mississippi Power’s customers to be the sole investors in the plant?” Presley told the Better Mississippi Report.

The PSC voted 2-1 in April to allow Mississippi Power Co. to build the Kemper County plant at a cost of no more than $2.4 billion. Commissioners said they would decide at a later date whether to grant Mississippi Power’s request for ratepayers to finance the plant before it begins operating.

Less than a month later in May, the PSC voted 2-1 to increase the cost cap of the Mississippi Power plant to $2.88 billion and also allowed the company to charge ratepayers for financing costs before the plant is completed.

Presley cast the sole no votes at the April and May meetings.

Presley, 32, a lifelong resident of Nettleton, is in his first term on the PSC – winning the position in 2007 after serving as mayor of Nettleton from 2001 to 2007. He talked about the Mississippi Power plant and other issues in an interview with the Better Mississippi Report.

Better Mississippi Group: You were the only member of the Mississippi Public Service Commission to oppose the Mississippi Power Co. plan to build a coal-burning plant in Kemper County. Can you explain your concerns about this proposal and why you voted against it?
Brandon Presley:
Very simple. Mississippi Power wanted the ratepayers to pay in advance hundreds of millions of dollars in financing costs and then $2.4 billion (now up to $2.88 billion) for the plant itself, and after hours and hours of sworn testimony and days of hearings they would not, and to this day, still will not, guarantee their new technology to be used in this plant will work.
If I had voted yes for this plant, I would have been a part of forcing ratepayers in one of the poorest states in the nation to pay, in advance, for something the company can’t even guarantee will work and that was, obviously, a big concern to me. I strongly support innovative technology, and I have a deep admiration for the scientists and engineers who bring about groundbreaking ideas that could make our lives better. But I believe the companies themselves and private sector investors should be willing to take some of the risks and not force all the risk on ratepayers who don’t have a choice in their providers. Remember, customers of Mississippi Power can’t choose who provides their electricity. They must use Mississippi Power or be in the dark, literally. So they are now being forced, via their electric bill, to invest in this plant.
I received letters urging me to support the project from everyone from Gov. Barbour to Steven Chu, secretary of energy in the Obama administration. I wondered if they thought it was such a good project, why didn’t they find a way to pay for it rather than forcing Mississippi Power’s customers to be the sole investors in the plant?
Also, I felt strongly that since there are so many unknowns out there, especially about the technology itself, that nothing would have been harmed by waiting. As I have said, Henry Ford built a better car five years after he started on his first one.
In a few years, we should have a better idea about other discoveries going on now, such as the impact of shale natural gas and also about the technology in the plant. Maybe then Mississippi Power will be able to guarantee that it will work. In a few years, we should also have a better understanding of the current energy legislation and environmental regulation that is being debated in Washington.
If Mississippi Power is going to ask consumers to pay up to $2.88 billion, plus hundreds of millions in banking fees (before the plant puts out any electricity), they need to have their ducks in a row with technology that they can guarantee works and share some of the risk. They didn’t. So I voted “no” twice.

Better Mississippi: The vote was a total change from a stand the PSC took days earlier. Can you tell us what led to the about-face on the PSC?
Presley:
I’ve been consistent – I voted no both times. You would have to ask the other two commissioners that question. Even though I could not support the project after hearing and studying the facts presented to us for months, I felt the first order on April 29th was strong and at least had some good protections in it for the ratepayers. I do not know why the majority voted to ease up on that order and grant the company another $480 million in spending authority under certain circumstances.

Better Mississippi: Mississippi Power Co. won’t release the possible increase in electric rates that customers may have to pay to finance construction of the Kemper County plant. Is this something that should be released to the public? Why?
Presley:
Absolutely. They should have been disclosed before the plant was approved. It was one of the reasons I voted against the project. Two times before the final votes, I asked if the rate impacts were going to be made public before the project was approved, and both times the answer was “no.”
The customers of Mississippi Power have a right to know how this plant is going to impact their bills. They shouldn’t have to wait until they get the bill out of their mailbox to understand how much it is going to cost them. I had proposed changing the rule that allowed Mississippi Power to deem these rate impacts “confidential” prior to the final vote on Kemper. I raised the issue of changing this rule in May but was out-voted. The issue was taken up in our June meeting, at which time it passed unanimously.

Better Mississippi: With the Sierra Club taking the Mississippi Power Co. Kemper County issue to court, how do you see things working now? Will this be a long, protracted case?
Presley:
All I know is that I will keep fighting for taxpayers and ratepayers no matter what happens.

Better Mississippi: You are one of three commissioners on the PSC. Can you tell us about your relationship with the other commissioners? Do you all tend to get along? How do you handle disagreements on major issues, such as the one with Mississippi Power Co.?
Presley:
I like my fellow commissioners and think they’re good men. As with any three-member commission, we are going to disagree from time to time.
With that said, I tend to be very passionate about the job the people elected me to do. I’m passionate about what I believe a regulator is supposed to do. I won’t back down when I believe consumers are getting a raw deal or when I see something unfair about the process. I think that’s what the ratepayers expect and it’s certainly how an elected official who is protecting the public’s interest should act, in my opinion.
When you have the courage of your convictions, you don’t mind going against the grain or standing alone. I recently heard a pretty good saying that fits this situation, “Even a dead fish can go with the flow.” I don’t plan to be a “go with the flow” commissioner.

Better Mississippi: What do you see as the biggest challenge of the PSC these days?
Presley:
The single biggest challenge is making sure that consumers aren’t left out of the picture at the PSC. It seems that almost every rate plan, service plan, rule and regulation was written for and by the utilities for their benefit. Too many times the people who actually have to pay the utility bills have just been left out of the process and forgotten. The simple fact is that if the PSC doesn’t stand up for the consumer, nobody else is going to.
We desperately need balance at the PSC. And by that, I mean that we need to remember that there are real people, families, small businesses and industries that have to pay for these rate hikes and proposals. The utilities have a vast reservoir of attorneys, lobbyists, experts and cheerleaders. All the general public has is the PSC.

Better Mississippi: What do you see as the most important regulatory issues facing the PSC and consumers in the state?
Presley:
So many Mississippians are facing very tough economic situations in their homes and at their businesses. My mission is to do everything possible to keep money in the pockets of taxpayers and ratepayers and not help the big utilities make undeserved profits. That is our single biggest challenge. I believe we can craft policies that are pro-consumer and pro-business. Letting utilities increase rates whenever they want hurts so many small businesses that are the backbone of our state’s economy. I am proud to say that I have voted against more spending and rate increases than any other commissioner in the history of the PSC.

Better Mississippi: How do you see your role on the PSC?
Presley:
I see my role as a watchdog for the public interest – period.
A commissioner I’ve gotten to know from another state says it best. One time, when the hearing room was full of attorneys and high-paid lobbyists for the utility companies, he called the meeting to order by asking everyone who was there on behalf of the utilities to please stand up. Almost the whole room, of course, stood to their feet. Then he told them to sit down. He then asked, “Who is here on behalf of the ratepayers?” Nobody responded and he stood up and said “You see, folks? That’s why I’m here. That’s my job.” I couldn’t agree more.

Better Mississippi: Statewide and district elections will take place in 2011. Do you plan to run for re-election? Why or why not?
Presley:
I honestly haven’t given it much thought. I’m consumed daily with issues at the PSC and getting my job done. I will make a decision about the election in the coming months.

 

More on Obama’s US Secretary of Energy who Targeted PSC’s for Kemper County

Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy

As United States Secretary of Energy, Dr. Steven Chu is charged with helping implement President Obama’s ambitious agenda to invest in clean energy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address the global climate crisis, and create millions of new jobs.

Dr. Chu is a distinguished scientist and co-winner of the Nobel Prize for Physics (1997). He has devoted his recent scientific career to the search for new solutions to our energy challenges and stopping global climate change – a mission he continues with even greater urgency as Secretary of Energy.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Chu was the Director of the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, where he led the lab in pursuit of alternative and renewable energy technologies. He also taught at the University of California as a Professor of Physics and Professor of Molecular and Cell Biology. Previously, he held positions at Stanford University and AT&T Bell Laboratories.

Dr. Chu’s research in atomic physics, quantum electronics, polymer and biophysics includes tests of fundamental theories in physics, the development of methods to laser cool and trap atoms, atom interferometry, the development of the first atomic fountain, and the manipulation and study of polymers and biological systems at the single molecule level. While at Stanford, he helped start Bio-X, a multi-disciplinary initiative that brings together the physical and biological sciences with engineering and medicine.

The holder of 10 patents, Dr. Chu has published nearly 250 scientific and technical papers. He remains active with his research group and has recently published work on general relativity and single molecule biology and biophysics that includes sub-nanometer molecular imaging with optical microscopy, cadherin adhesion, neural vesicle fusion, and nerve growth factor transport. About 30 alumni of his research group have gone on to become professors in their own right and have been recognized by dozens of prizes and awards.

Dr. Chu is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academia Sinica, the Korean Academy of Sciences and Technology and numerous other civic and professional organizations. He received an A.B. degree in mathematics, a B.S. degree in physics from the University of Rochester, and a Ph.D. in physics from the University of California, Berkeley as well as honorary degrees from 15 universities.

Dr. Chu was born in Saint Louis, Missouri in 1948. He is married to Dr. Jean Chu, who holds a D.Phil. in Physics from Oxford and has served as chief of staff to two Stanford University presidents as well as Dean of Admissions. Secretary Chu has two grown sons, Geoffrey and Michael, by a previous marriage.

In announcing Dr. Chu’s selection, President Obama said, “The future of our economy and national security is inextricably linked to one challenge: energy. Steven has blazed new trails as a scientist, teacher, and administrator, and has recently led the Berkeley National Laboratory in pursuit of new alternative and renewable energies. He is uniquely suited to be our next Secretary of Energy as we make this pursuit a guiding purpose of the Department of Energy, as well as a national mission.” Dr. Chu was sworn into office as the 12th Secretary of Energy on January 21, 2009.

http://www.energy.gov/organization/dr_steven_chu.htm

%d bloggers like this: