Scale Microgrids Applies for Power Generator Permit With DNR

Scale Microgrids has applied to the DNR for a permit for a power generation facility at the proposed data center site south of Maryville that would sell up to 600 megawatts of electricity to the local bulk electric system. RTP Environmental, a company based in South Carolina, filed the paperwork with DNR on behalf of Scale. There would be 12 simple-cycle turbines. The company says that the facility will not be a major source under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations because the facility’s maximum annual emissions will be less than 250 tons per year for each pollutant.

All the required paperwork for the proposed project is available online at the Missouri DNR website.

The power generator would be a simple-cycle natural gas-fired electric generating facility. It would interconnect with the Southwest Power Pool transmission system at the Mullin Creek substation via a new high-voltage substation to be constructed as part of the proposed data center.

The project, under White Cloud Generating, would be under a different entity than the data center, which is under White Cloud Acres. The stated purpose is to provide reliable electric service in the area, including the ability of the local electric utility to serve a data center load.

The power generation facility would be located at 340th Street and Jet Road near Barnard, Pumpkin Center, and Maryville.

The components would consist of 12 simple-cycle natural gas fired combustion turbines, each with an evaporative cooler and each with a Hot SCR for NO2 control and an oxidation catalyst for CO and VOC control. There would be 12 electric fuel gas heaters, two emergency diesel engine fire pumps, two 400-gallon diesel fuel tanks, 12 lubricating oil tanks, and two 20,000-gallon aqueous ammonia storage tanks. Natural gas would come from a nearby ANR pipeline.

The diesel engine fire pumps would only be operated during emergency situations and once a week for 30 minutes for testing purposes. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel would be used in the emergency diesel engine fire pumps. The electric heaters would be used to prevent the natural gas from condensing.

If White Cloud Generating gets a permit and a notice to proceed, construction of the project would take approximately 12 months.

The combustion turbines are proposed to be operated at baseload up to 8,685 hours per year, or just under 24 hours a day.

The Missouri DNR has primary jurisdiction over air emissions by enforcing its own regulations as well as the EPA regulations.

As part of its permit requirements, White Cloud Generating will be required to do extensive recordkeeping, monitoring, performance tests, notification of both the DNR and EPA, and ensuring that equipment purchased meets DNR and EPA regulations. White Cloud Generating will do maintenance checks on its emergency diesel engine fire pumps for up to 100 hours per year.

The project will be subject to Acid Rain Program Regulations. The Acid Rain Program, according to the EPA website, requires major emission reductions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide, the primary precursors of acid rain, from the power sector. The program sets a permanent cap on the total amount of Sulfur dioxide which can be emitted by electric generating units in the United States. The final cap was set in 2010 at 8.95 million tons total. White Cloud Generating will submit an Acid Rain Permit Application at least 24 months before the units commence commercial operating.

The projected date to start construction is February 2027, which is after the Nodaway County data center moratorium is set to expire, unless the County Commission extends it. The projected date of operation startup is February 2028.

 

Proposed EPA Rule to Limit Use of Atrazine

Last month, the EPA issued a proposed rule that would limit the use of atrazine. Atrazine is a common herbicide that is used to stop pre and post emergence broadleaf and grassy weeds in crops such as sorghum and corn. It is the second most widely used herbicide after glyphosate. Studies, including a 2007 study from the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, and a 2017 study from Weed Science, estimate that positive effect on corn yields have been anywhere from 1-8%. A 2014 article from Pest Management Science estimates that the positive effects on sorghum yields have been as high as 20%.

The proposed rules involve a level of aquatic level concentration of 3.4 parts per billion, as opposed to the current 15 parts per billion. The Missouri Farm Bureau has protested the new rules, saying these rules would dramatically impact atrazine use for over 70% of corn acres nationwide. They say that the EPA did not convene a Scientific Advisory Panel in making this decision, and that previous panels dismissed such a low level.

In the event of watersheds with concentrations exceeding 3.4 parts per billion, the EPA would recommend a combination of reduced application rates and runoff control measures, which the Farm Bureau says would also affect 90 other herbicide formulations. They say the estimated cost to replace atrazine would be $42 per acre due to replacement costs and yield loss due to decreased pest control

In September 2020, the Trump Administration announced it would be reapproving atrazine for the next 15 years. The Center for Biological Diversity and other public interest groups sued, saying the Trump Administration disregarded safeguards for children’s health, allowed more than 50% more atrazine to end up in US waterways, ignored recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, and violated the Endangered Species Act. 

In November 2020, as the result of a court settlement, the EPA released an assessment finding that atrazine is likely to harm more than 1,000 of the nation’s endangered plants and animals. 

In November 2021, a followup assessment conducted by the EPA included a 64 page document describing the harmful effects of atrazine on plants, fish, birds, and mammals. The introduction reads in part, “In target pests (e.g., various weed species), atrazine has a mechanism of action of inhibiting photosynthesis in photosystem II (PSII). Triazine herbicides such as propazine bind with a protein complex of the Photosystem II in chloroplast photosynthetic membranes (Schulz et al., 1990). The result is an inhibition in the transfer of electrons through the light reactions of photosynthesis that in turn inhibits the formation and release of oxygen, production of adenosine triphosphate, and the fixation of carbon dioxide into sugars.”

“Atrazine is slightly toxic to birds and mammals and is practically non-toxic to terrestrial invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. In most terrestrial animal species, chronic effects are the predominant concern and are discussed further below. Based on the mechanism of action in target plants, i.e., disruption of photosynthesis, atrazine is toxic to most photoautotroph organisms including unicellular algae and flowering plants.”

“Atrazine is moderately toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, highly toxic to freshwater aquatic invertebrates and very highly toxic to estuarine/marine aquatic invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Chronic exposure studies for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, aquatic phase amphibians and aquatic invertebrates resulted in effects on survival, growth or reproduction.”

The EPA is accepting public comments on the proposed rule until October 7th.

State Rep. Don Rone Requests Special Hearing to Examine the Impact of Dicamba Herbicide on Missouri Crops

State Rep. Don Rone has asked House Speaker Todd Richardson to allow the House Agriculture Committee to hold a special hearing to investigate the impact of the dicamba herbicide on Missouri crops. Rone said the herbicide has already caused irreparable damage to thousands of acres of farmland and cost growers in the Bootheel millions of dollars in lost crops. He wants the legislature to act quickly to look for solutions that can prevent additional damage to even more farm land in the state.

As Rone wrote in a letter to House Speaker Richardson, “I am sure you have been informed of the problem the Bootheel region is seeing with Dicamba and its effect on Missouri crops. The total ramifications of this herbicide on Missouri crops are as yet unknown; therefore I am requesting a special hearing of the House Select Committee on Agriculture to assess the problem. By expanding our knowledge on the issue, we can determine exactly how this will affect the growers of the Missouri Bootheel.”

Rone added, “As you are aware, agriculture is the state of Missouri’s number one industry; therefore the welfare of agriculture is of the utmost importance to both our economy and our citizens’ livelihoods. As leaders in our state, we must do everything possible to become knowledgeable in any and all things that could affect the industry.”

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued a warning regarding the illegal use of dicamba, which has not been registered by the EPA. Any current application of dicamba during the growing season is against the law. Missouri has already seen more than 100 complaints of dicamba misuse and more than 42,000 acres of crops have been infected.

Rone said he hopes to work with Speaker Richardson and state Rep. Bill Reiboldt, who chairs the House Agriculture Committee, to schedule a hearing as soon as possible.

Missouri Corn Growers Challenge Proposed EPA Ethanol Plan

Members of the Missouri Corn Growers Association (MCGA) once again joined farmers and ethanol supporters from across the Midwest today to remind the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is working. During an EPA field hearing held in downtown Kansas City, Missouri, attendees urged EPA officials to reconsider its latest proposal that cuts the amount of corn-based ethanol below statutory levels set by Congress.

"Just a year ago we were in a room similar to this, walking through many of the same points being reviewed today," noted MCGA President Morris Heitman of Mound City during his testimony. "It is unfortunate that once again I, and many other corn growers, had to take a day away from the farm to remind the EPA they are once again, ignoring the law with regard to the proposed corn-based ethanol blending targets."

Last year the EPA proposed Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) nearly 4 billion gallons lower than statutory levels. During that public comment period, Missouri corn growers testified at the EPA hearing held in Kansas City, Kansas and attended rallies for renewable fuels in both Kansas City and Washington, D.C. After massive pushback, EPA raised their proposed renewable fuel requirements, but fell short of meeting full statutory levels set by Congress. In May, EPA proposed to set the 2017 RVO at 14.8 billion gallons for corn-based ethanol. This is 200 million fewer gallons than the 15 billion gallons called for by the RFS.

"Consumers are demanding options at the pump and by not enforcing the statutory levels set by Congress, Big Oil will continue its stranglehold on the marketplace," Missouri Corn board member Gary Porter of Mercer said during his testimony. "Today I ask that you reconsider this proposal and follow the law established by the Renewable Fuel Standard. Renewable fuels help revitalize our rural communities, decrease our dependence on oil and gives consumers more options at the pump."

The public hearing started at 9 a.m. in the Sheraton at Crown Center in Kansas City, Missouri. In addition to the hearing, Fuels America, a coalition of organizations committed to protecting the RFS, hosted a press conference. Key industry advocates including Missouri Director of Agriculture Richard Fordyce, Crappie Masters Spokesperson Brian Sowers and National Corn Growers Association President Chip Bowling spoke about the importance of ethanol and reinstating RVO numbers to full statutory levels.

Supporters who could not testify at the hearing are urged to submit comments to the EPA by July 11, when regulators will begin drafting a final rule.

Editorial -- Want to Stop Another Sandy Hook? Get Rid of Lead Pollution.

Back in the 1990's, there was a surprising phenomena in New York City, formerly the crime capital of the world. Crime rates, which had been going up, were suddenly falling at a dramatic rate. Mayor Rudy Giuliani, of course, was quick to tout his get tough on crime initiatives as the cause. But it turns out that this was happening all over the country. It turns out from scientific research that there is a strong correlation between crime and exposure to lead.

There is a good explanation for this -- lead affects the part of the brain that is most responsible for making judgments. In 1986 and 1987, the US phased leaded gasoline out of cars, which dramatically decreased exposure. In 1988, at the height of the Presidential election season, George Bush's Willie Horton ad got a lot of traction because of the ever-rising crime rate that nobody seemed to have an answer to besides more prisons and tougher jail sentences. But in 2012, crime was barely an issue in the Presidential election.

In 2007, the Washington Post reported on the work of Rick Nevin, an economist out of Virginia. He reported that lead poisoning accounted for much of the variation in violent crime in the US. It showed an identical decades-long association between lead poisoning and crime rates in nine different countries. In fact, he told the Post that 65% to 90% of the variation in violent crime was explained by lead.

There have been many other theories to explain this drop in crime, but Nevin has accounted for all of them. One argument advanced by the pro-choice community is that the elimination of unwanted babies through the legalization of abortion was responsible. Another argument is that Giuliani's get tough on crime approach was the cause. Others have argued that demographics or economic conditions were responsible. But in fact, Nevin accounted for all of these factors and lead was still the only explanation that can account for the trends in crime. In every single instance, the violent crime rate tracks lead poisoning levels two decades earlier. In fact, abortion was also legalized in the UK in the early 1970's and crime soared there in the 1990's. The UK did not enact strong regulations on lead until the late 1980's and early 1990's. On the other hand, New York was ahead of the curve on this issue; they began to crack down on lead in 1960, starting with a policy to replace old windows. Old windows are a major source of lead poisoning.

The Post article cites two other studies that found the same correlation. The first study (Stretesky & Lynch, 2001), showed that counties with high lead levels had four times the murder rate of counties with low lead levels, even when controlling for multiple environmental and socioeconomic factors. The study noted that populations who were most at risk of lead poisoning were the least likely to get resources required to prevent, screen, and treat the illness. The second study, a University of Pittsburgh study done in 2002, showed that arrested youths had lead levels that were four times higher than youths who were not arrested. Herb Needleman, who did the study, was quoted by the Post as saying that lead is a toxin that affects judgment, resulting in youths ignoring consequences of their actions such as jail time.

A third study (Wright & Dietrich et al, 2008) measured lead exposure rates for children in Cincinatti born between 1979 and 1984 and subsequently compared it with arrest records. The study found that prenatal and postnatal blood lead concentrations are associated with higher rates of violent arrests as well as arrests in general. This study demonstrated an association between developmental exposure to lead and adult criminal behavior. The 2008 study is important because the others indirectly measured exposure while this one directly measured childhood exposure to lead.

In 2012 another study, reported on by the Australian Broadcasting Company, found that there was a 90% correlation between the rise and fall of air lead and the aggravated assault rate.

The New York Times, in 2007, reported on the work of Jessica Wolpaw Reyes, an economist at Amherst College. Her research showed that the main source of lead in both air and water was leaded gasoline, phased out by the Clean Air Act.

This research shows that getting rid of lead is a need and not a want. By the time people like the Sandy Hook killer grow up, it may be too late. Therefore, the best way to fight crime is prevention. The easiest way that each of us can prevent lead exposure in children is common sense -- feed them a healthy breakfast every day. A Chinese study in 2011 reported on by Time showed that children who eat a healthy breakfast have 15% less lead exposure than ones who don't.

The EPA has other ideas that each of us can do to reduce lead exposure. If you suspect your home has high levels of lead:
--Get your young children tested for lead even if they seem healthy;
--Wash childrens' hands, bottles, pacifiers, and toys often;
--Make sure your children eat healthy, low-fat foods;
--Regularly clean floors, window sills, and other surfaces;
--Wipe soil off shoes before entering the house;
--Talk to your landlord about fixing surfaces with peeling or chipping paint;
--Take precautions to avoid exposure to lead dust when remodeling or renovating;
--Don't use a belt-sander, propane torch, high temperature heat gun, scraper, or sandpaper or painted surfaces that may contain lead;
--Don't try to remove lead-based paint yourself.

Homes built before 1978 may have high levels of lead paint. The Federal Government did not ban lead paint from housing until 1978.

This does not mean that there are no other factors affecting crime. We have to do all we can to raise our children not to be violent or aggressive and we must do all we can to have adequate law enforcement. But the relationship between lead exposure and crime is one that has been widely overlooked up to this point. In light of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, we cannot afford to overlook such factors anymore.

Missouri is not seeking a waiver for federal ethanol guidelines

(Missouri Digital News) -- Despite the large number of livestock in Missouri that eat corn, the state is not one of the seven states that have petitioned for a waiver to the federal ethanol mandate.

As a severe drought continues to affect Midwest farmers, the nation's corn crop yield could be as much as 60 percent below normal value this year. Every year, 35-40 percent of the corn crop is diverted to ethanol production, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The cost of corn has risen dramatically due to low production rates.

Except for certain circumstances, all gasoline offered in Missouri must contain 10 percent ethanol, according to the Missouri Renewable Fuel Standard Act passed in 2006. The exceptions include: premium gasoline, aviation fuel, E75-E85 fuel ethanol and when ethanol-blended gasoline is the same price or cheaper than un-blended gasoline.

A federal mandate passed in 2005 established requirements on the amount of ethanol that has to be blended each year. This year, 13.2 billion gallons of ethanol have to be blended into gasoline nationwide.

On Aug. 30, the Environmental Protection Agency began a 30-day open-comment period about the mandate. During the comment period, the public can give feedback on the possibility of granting waivers to ease the requirements for states claiming they cannot meet the demands of the mandate because of the drought.

Many livestock groups have been struggling from the mandate because the price of corn has risen so dramatically, according to the National Cattleman's Beef Association's website.

Claire McCaskill -- New Safeguards in Farm Bill Against Unreasonable Regulations

After waging a successful battle against unreasonable proposals to regulate farm dust and teenagers who work on family farms and ranches, U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill today moved to amend the Farm Bill to include strong new safeguards against any future attempts at unnecessary and burdensome federal rules on farmers and ranchers.

McCaskill, who was born and raised in small town Missouri, introduced an amendment to the Farm Bill that would dramatically strengthen the authority of a farm policy advisory position at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—a position that currently exists, but that is not required by law. McCaskill’s measure would establish a framework in which that official would serve as an important check against new unnecessary federal regulations that would negatively impact agriculture.

“We can keep batting down each unreasonable or unneeded regulation on our farms and ranches like a game of whack-a-mole, or we can tackle the root issue head on—that farmers and ranchers need a seat at the table when these decisions are made,” McCaskill said. “That’s exactly the gap my plan would bridge—by making sure the EPA has an in-house agriculture advisor at all times, and giving that position real authority. That way, before any new rule can be issued that will affect the jobs and livelihoods of farming families across rural America, whoever thinks the rule is a good idea would be forced to hear—and respond to—some common sense from folks who know the business of agriculture.”

McCaskill’s amendment would require the EPA’s Chief Agriculture Counsel to weigh in on behalf of farmers and ranchers on any proposed new regulations that would have a significant impact on agriculture, and would require the EPA Administrator to issue a written response to any concerns raised by the advisor. McCaskill also introduced a separate amendment today, along with Sen. Amy Klobochar (D-Minn.), which would allow the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture to appoint farmers or ranchers to the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, doubling the number of members with a background in agriculture serving on the Board.

The Farm Bill currently being debated in the Senate would protect agriculture jobs and reduce the national deficit by $23 billion by streamlining and consolidating federal programs and ending unnecessary farm subsidies, while preserving important resources for farm and ranch families and strengthening the crop insurance program—issues which are critical to the livelihoods of Missouri’s farmers and ranchers.

McCaskill also renewed her support today for two other proposals that would bar the federal government from issuing future rules regulating farm dust and limit the ability of teenagers to work on family farms and ranches. McCaskill is also supporting an amendment to prohibit the EPA from requiring duplicative permits for pesticide use.

A copy of McCaskill’s amendment to boost the authority of the EPA’s farm policy advisor is available on her website HERE.

EPA School Integrated Pest Management Grants

Overview Information
The following list provides key information concerning this funding opportunity:
A. Federal Agency and Office Name: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
B. Funding Opportunity Title: EPA School Integrated Pest Management Grants
C. Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OPP-11-002
D. Announcement Type: Request for Applications (RFA) - Initial Announcement
E. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 66.716 - Surveys, Studies, Demonstrations, Educational Outreach, and Special Projects within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
F. Statutory Authority: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 20. G. Dates: Applications must be submitted through either Grants.gov or via express delivery. Grants.gov submissions must be submitted on or before July 18, 2011 by midnight Eastern Time. Hard copy applications via express delivery only (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.) must be received on or before July 18, 2011 by 5:00 PM Eastern Time. EPA will not accept applications submitted via fax, email, or 1st Class Mail delivery by U.S. Postal Service. See Section IV for further information. Applications received after the closing date will NOT be considered for funding.

Brief Description
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) announces the availability of approximately $1 million for assistance agreements to further through research, development, monitoring, public education, training, demonstrations, or studies the adoption of verifiable integrated pest management (IPM) by the nation’s kindergarten to 12th grade public and tribal schools. IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests that combines biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. A school IPM program uses easily implemented strategies to reduce sources of food, water, and shelter for pests in school buildings and grounds. Verifiable school IPM is an ongoing activity that includes all of these documented elements: understanding pests; setting action thresholds for key pests, i.e., knowing when to take action against key pests; monitoring for pests, their locations and populations; removing conditions that allow pest infestation; and using one or more effective pest control methods including sanitation, structural maintenance, and nonchemical methods in place of or in combination with pesticides.

Proposed projects must further through research, development, monitoring, public education, training, demonstrations, or studies the adoption of verifiable IPM by kindergarten to 12th grade public and tribal schools that identify and reduce the risks associated with pesticide use. EPA strongly encourages projects that utilize consortia, partnerships, and other collaborative means in conducting the project. Proposed projects must conform to applicable state and/or tribal pesticide application requirements and IPM regulations. This program will not support projects the primary aim of which is to address the use of antimicrobial and cleaning agents in schools or pest management in school greenhouses or demonstration gardens.

The total estimated funding expected to be available for awards under this competitive opportunity is approximately $1 million. The Agency anticipates funding a number of projects ranging from approximately $50,000 up to no more than $250,000, subject to the availability of funds, the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations. The project period of performance is limited to two years. Selections and awards will be made by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs with funding from EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

EPA School Integrated Pest Management Grants

Overview Information
The following list provides key information concerning this funding opportunity:
A. Federal Agency and Office Name: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)
B. Funding Opportunity Title: EPA School Integrated Pest Management Grants
C. Funding Opportunity Number: EPA-OPP-11-002
D. Announcement Type: Request for Applications (RFA) - Initial Announcement
E. Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number: 66.716 - Surveys, Studies, Demonstrations, Educational Outreach, and Special Projects within the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
F. Statutory Authority: Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), Section 20. G. Dates: Applications must be submitted through either Grants.gov or via express delivery. Grants.gov submissions must be submitted on or before July 18, 2011 by midnight Eastern Time. Hard copy applications via express delivery only (e.g., FedEx, UPS, etc.) must be received on or before July 18, 2011 by 5:00 PM Eastern Time. EPA will not accept applications submitted via fax, email, or 1st Class Mail delivery by U.S. Postal Service. See Section IV for further information. Applications received after the closing date will NOT be considered for funding.

Brief Description
EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) announces the availability of approximately $1 million for assistance agreements to further through research, development, monitoring, public education, training, demonstrations, or studies the adoption of verifiable integrated pest management (IPM) by the nation’s kindergarten to 12th grade public and tribal schools. IPM is a sustainable approach to managing pests that combines biological, cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks. A school IPM program uses easily implemented strategies to reduce sources of food, water, and shelter for pests in school buildings and grounds. Verifiable school IPM is an ongoing activity that includes all of these documented elements: understanding pests; setting action thresholds for key pests, i.e., knowing when to take action against key pests; monitoring for pests, their locations and populations; removing conditions that allow pest infestation; and using one or more effective pest control methods including sanitation, structural maintenance, and nonchemical methods in place of or in combination with pesticides.

Proposed projects must further through research, development, monitoring, public education, training, demonstrations, or studies the adoption of verifiable IPM by kindergarten to 12th grade public and tribal schools that identify and reduce the risks associated with pesticide use. EPA strongly encourages projects that utilize consortia, partnerships, and other collaborative means in conducting the project. Proposed projects must conform to applicable state and/or tribal pesticide application requirements and IPM regulations. This program will not support projects the primary aim of which is to address the use of antimicrobial and cleaning agents in schools or pest management in school greenhouses or demonstration gardens.

The total estimated funding expected to be available for awards under this competitive opportunity is approximately $1 million. The Agency anticipates funding a number of projects ranging from approximately $50,000 up to no more than $250,000, subject to the availability of funds, the quality of proposals received, and other applicable considerations. The project period of performance is limited to two years. Selections and awards will be made by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs with funding from EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

Obama Officials Outline Plan to Fight Gas Prices, End Foreign Oil Dependency

The House Oversight Committee conducted a hearing on the high gas prices last Tuesday with Chairman Darrell Issa claiming that President Obama was seeking to impose $8 per gallon gas and EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson and Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes saying that the Obama Administration was doing all they could do bring down gas prices.

Issa said that the problem was that Obama was trying to regulate what he was unable to legislate and trying to impose his environmental agenda. He said that the problem was that the country would be stuck trying to import fuel from hostile governments and impeding job creation. Ranking Member Elijah Cummings, on the other hand, said that we have a duty to leave a better planet to future generations. Recalling the devastating BP spill last year, he said that "there was nothing we could do but wait and pray for 87 days" until the spill was finally contained. He said that the spill in question devastated a Gulf economy that was already hit hard by Katrina and that it cost the region $100 billion per year. On top of that, he said that the high gas prices were making it harder for people to get to work. Quoting various sources including the American Petroleum Institute and Moody's, he said that it was not fair for Issa to blame Obama and that it was simply "a blatant attempt to score political points."

Cummings said that the Obama Administration was doing all it could to address the problem of high gas prices and that the one thing that they could do that would provide the most immediate benefits would be to crack down on what he said was rampant speculation that was driving up oil prices. Obama has already appointed a task force that is in the process of investigating that.

EPA Chief Lisa Jackson said that Americans were suffering at the pump and that, quoting Exxon, said that it was a product of high oil prices worldwide. Addressing calls to increase oil production, Ms. Jackson said that there was only so much that the country could do to address oil prices since they could never control more than a fraction of the world's oil reserves but that it was still better to buy American oil than it was to buy foreign oil.

Jackson said that oil production levels in the US are at their highest since 2003. She described the permitting process as a fast one that rarely got appealed or overruled and that the White House was doing all they could do expedite new oil permits. She said that another solution would be "Fracking," which she said would lead to a 50% increase in natural gas production. She said that natural gas production would be cleaner than current methods.

Despite the current high gas prices and the current state of the economy, Ms. Jackson said that the EPA still had a core mission to protect the environment as mandated by Congress; therefore, she said that the EPA would continue to step in and act if there was drilling that was a threat to residents. But she said that another thing that the EPA was doing was tightening up fuel mileage standards, which Jackson said would save billions of gallons of oil and thousands of dollars of savings to the American people in gas costs. She said that biofuels would further reduce consumptions.

David Hayes of the Department of Interior said that there was no quick fix to the present high gas prices and that it was better to follow a long-term energy plan than to panic when gas prices go up and then "hit the snooze button" when they go back down again. He said that the US has already done much to address high gas prices, including for the first time in US history, approve permits for utility-scale renewable energy projects around the country and offshore. He said that the US has already started making progress in getting the country off foreign oil; for instance, the amount of oil that the US has imported has gone from 57% in 2007 to under 50% now. Domestic offshore production has gone up by one third and onshore oil production has gone up 5%. He said that the US was committed to cutting back on foreign oil even more over the next few years.

Hayes said that there was ample opportunities to make even more headway because there were millions of acres both onshore and offshore that were available for development but that have not been used yet. He said that the government was continuing to schedule new lease sales and that they were looking at ways of creating more incentives for oil companies to participate. He said that the US was back in business in the gulf, saying that the permitting process was moving along just as fast as it was before the BP spill.

Cut to the Chase: Ready for a Barnyard Dance

By Garrett Hawkins

My soon to be two-year-old daughter loves story time, and Sandra Boynton’s Barnyard Dance ranks at the top of our “most read” list. Admittedly, I enjoy reciting it (yes, I pretty much have it memorized) as much as she enjoys listening to me and looking at the pictures. “Stomp your feet. Clap your hands. Everybody ready for a barnyard dance” the book begins as farm animals pick their partners, promenade and square dance around a barn lot.

The clapping, hand stomping, promenading and dosidoing in the book are akin to the debate in Washington, D.C., concerning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some members of Congress applaud the agency and are willing to let EPA call the moves when it comes to regulating agriculture and industry. Other lawmakers, especially those from farm states, stomp their feet and throw their hands in the air in frustration at the barrage of regulations, particularly those aimed at farmers and ranchers.

Just a few weeks ago both chambers of Congress debated EPA’s regulations for utilities, refineries, manufacturers and other emitters of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. The House of Representatives approved a bill, “The Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011,” to prohibit EPA from regulating these gases from stationary sources for the purpose of curbing global warming or climate change. The same legislation was considered in the Senate, although in the form of an amendment to a small business bill.

When some lawmakers got wind Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was offering an amendment to stop EPA from moving ahead with its onerous regulations, they scrambled to find a dance partner with different moves. Seven senators supported an amendment to exempt farms and ranches from regulation, side-stepping the issue of higher energy and input costs that will result from forcing utilities and refineries to comply with new greenhouse gas permitting requirements. Twelve senators, including Senator Claire McCaskill, voted to simply delay EPA regulation for two years.

The McConnell amendment, which was backed by Farm Bureau, had the support of Senator Blunt and 49 other senators, but fell 10 votes shy of the 60 needed for passage. Therefore states are continuing with amending their regulations to comply with EPA’s new rules. The Missouri Air Conservation Commission, for example, must soon decide whether Missouri will comply, or allow EPA to issue permits to regulated entities in the state.

The debate or dance is certain to continue on this issue; however the longer Congress takes to rein in EPA, the more difficult it will be to undo what has been done. We can only hope the story has a happy ending for farmers and ranchers and the consumers who depend on them for their food.

(30)

(Garrett Hawkins, of Jefferson City, Mo., is the director of national legislative programs for Missouri Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization.)

Simple Steps can Reduce Smog

Ozone monitoring season begins April 1 and runs through Oct. 31 according to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

Ground-level ozone – commonly known as smog – is a gas that is created when pollution from vehicles, businesses and power plants combine in the presence of sunlight. Typically, ozone pollution is more of a problem during hot summer months because sunlight and warm temperatures speed up the formation of ground-level ozone.

Exposure to ground-level ozone contributes to health and environmental problems. Healthy adults can experience problems breathing, especially those who exercise or work outdoors. Children are at increased risk from exposure to ground-level ozone because their lungs are still developing. Ground-level ozone can also damage trees and agricultural crops.

Simple everyday steps can help reduce the emission of harmful ozone-causing pollutants:

· Keep vehicle tires properly inflated. Under-inflated tires increase gasoline consumption.

· Use public transportation, carpool, bike or walk.

· Stop at the first click when filling up gas tanks. Overfilling can lead to gasoline spills, which allows harmful ozone-causing vapors to escape into the atmosphere.

· Do not use gas-powered lawn equipment on hot, sunny days with little or no wind. Consider waiting until early evening to mow your lawn.

· Conserve energy by turning off lights and appliances when leaving a room to reduce emissions from power plants.

· Set goals to reduce utility bills by two percent. This can save money and protect air quality.

Through ozone season, the department measures and records ozone levels from 23 air monitors across Missouri. This data is used to see if an area’s air quality meets the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone, currently set at 75 parts per billion. If an area monitors or contributes to violations of the ozone standard, actions must be taken to reduce the emissions that contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone. The department works with affected areas to develop emission reducing measures that are the most effective in terms of cost and emission reductions.

Thanks to the emission reducing efforts of Missouri residents and businesses, many areas in the state have shown improvement with controlling ozone levels. But, even with these successes, ground-level ozone remains a challenge.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a more protective eight-hour average ozone standard. This new standard is expected to fall within the range of 60 to 70 parts per billion of ozone and will be finalized this summer.

Ozone monitoring data for ozone season is available from the Missouri Air Quality Data System on the department's website at dnr.mo.gov/AQDS/index.do. For more information on ozone, call the department's Air Pollution Control Program at 800-361-4827 or visit the department's website at dnr.mo.gov/env/apcp/ozone.htm.

Senator Roy Blunt Introduces “GAS Act”

U.S. Senator Roy Blunt (Mo.) introduced the “Gas Accessibility and Stabilization” (GAS) Act today, which will help lower gas prices for Americans by improving the reliability, flexibility, and affordability of so-called “boutique fuels.”

Current mandates require that special blends of gas are used in different states and cities, and special blends complicate the supply chain and often cause unexpected price hikes if a boutique blend is in short supply. For instance, often a consumer who buys a tank of gas in Kansas City, Mo. and refuels in St. Louis, Mo. is purchasing a different blend of fuel.

The GAS Act will help ensure that the nation has a more dependable fuel supply system by allowing for a reduction in the number of approved boutique fuels and permitting communities more response flexibility in times of temporary shortage.

“Gas prices are skyrocketing while families and job creators nationwide are paying the price,” said Blunt. “We have a responsibility to work together to ensure Americans have access to affordable and reliable American-made energy sources.”

“This bill is a good start in the right direction. By allowing for a reduction in the number of approved boutique fuels and providing communities with more response flexibility during times of temporary shortage, the GAS Act will help drive down costs for households and small business owners who are struggling to make ends meet,” Blunt continued.

The GAS Act, which currently has garnered widespread support, will also expand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to waive fuel requirements for general problems with equipment necessary for transporting fuels and additives.

For over a decade, Blunt has worked to give the EPA authority to waive fuel requirements in the event of a disruption caused by a natural disaster, international event, or disruption of supply and to cap the amount of boutique fuels in existence at the time.

Cut to the Chase for January 26th, 2010

EPA, TMDL and AFBF

By Garrett Hawkins

The numbers are astonishing--America’s farmers and ranchers are producing 262 percent more food with 2 percent fewer inputs than they did in 1950. You would expect the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to applaud farmers for doing more with less and shrinking their environmental footprint. All too often though, our nation’s environmental authority would rather give a contemptible slap on the hand instead of a deserving pat on the back.

Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay area can attest to the heavy-handed approach taken by EPA. Producers in the 64,000 square mile watershed (Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia) have a strong history of environmental stewardship, both through compliance with existing state regulations and through implementation of voluntary conservation practices to protect water quality.

Despite the measurable improvements to water quality, EPA leadership in Washington, D.C. essentially decided the six states’ efforts aren’t good enough and it’s time for the federal government to step in.

EPA recently finalized a pollution control plan, or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), to dictate how much nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment can lawfully enter Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. The so-called “pollution diet” puts more power in the hands of the EPA by limiting states’ abilities to address water quality issues.

Under the TMDL, detailed watershed plans must be followed by the six states or else permits may be blocked or federal funds cut. Even more troubling is the ability of federal bureaucrats to micromanage the activities of farmers, homeowners and businesses.

EPA’s power grab on the East Coast may not seem like a big deal from 1,000 miles away, but it will be a model for other watersheds. In an interview with National Public Radio, the EPA administrator cited the Chesapeake Bay “pollution diet” as an example of the kind of regulatory action she would like to see along the Gulf Coast.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) believes the rule is unlawful and is challenging the TMDL in federal court. AFBF President Bob Stallman made the announcement at the organization’s annual meeting earlier this month when he talked about the out-of-control EPA.

At the same meeting 370 farmer and rancher voting delegates representing all 50 states and all types of production agriculture unanimously approved a resolution urging the U.S. Congress to pursue a vigorous oversight program of the agency and examine the impact of existing regulations on production agriculture.

Our message to Congress is EPA must be reined in. The Chesapeake Bay pollution control plan is one of many reasons why. Our lawmakers can hold EPA accountable, and should, if they care about keeping food, fiber and energy production in this country.

(Garrett Hawkins, of Jefferson City, Mo., is director of national legislative programs for Missouri Farm Bureau, the state’s largest farm organization.)

Proposed EPA Ozone Standards Fact Sheet

Fact Sheet by the Environmental Protection Agency

• On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ground-level ozone, the main component of smog. The proposed revisions are

based on scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and the environment.

• EPA is proposing to strengthen the 8-hour “primary” ozone standard, designed to protect

public health, to a level within the range of 0.060-0.070 parts per million (ppm).

• EPA is also proposing to establish a distinct cumulative, seasonal “secondary” standard,

designed to protect sensitive vegetation and ecosystems, including forests, parks, wildlife

refuges and wilderness areas. EPA is proposing to set the level of the secondary standard

within the range of 7-15 ppm-hours.

• The proposed revisions result from a reconsideration of the identical primary and secondary

ozone standards set at 0.075 ppm in 2008.

• EPA is reconsidering the ozone standards to ensure that two of the nation’s most important

air quality standards are clearly grounded in science, protect public health with an adequate

margin of safety, and protect the environment. The ozone standards set in 2008 were not as

protective as recommended by EPA’s panel of science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific

Advisory Committee (CASAC). The proposed standards are consistent with CASAC’s

recommendations.

• The proposal to strengthen the primary standard places more weight on key scientific and

technical information, including epidemiological studies, human clinical studies showing

effects in healthy adults at 0.060 ppm, and results of EPA’s exposure and risk assessment.

• The proposal to set a distinct secondary standard places more weight on the importance of a

biologically relevant standard by recognizing that cumulative, seasonal exposure to ozone

harms sensitive vegetation.

• EPA will take public comment for 60 days following publication of the proposal in the

Federal Register. The agency also will hold public hearings on the proposal in the following

three locations:

• February 2, 2010

ƒ Arlington, Va.

ƒ Houston, Texas

• February 4, 2010

ƒ Sacramento, Calif.

• EPA will issue final standards by August 31, 2010.

Review of Science: Public Health

• Scientific evidence indicates that adverse public health effects occur following exposure to

ozone, particularly in children and adults with lung disease.

• Breathing air containing ozone can reduce lung function and inflame airways, which can

increase respiratory symptoms and aggravate asthma or other lung diseases. Ozone exposure

also has been associated with increased susceptibility to respiratory infections, medication

use, doctor visits, and emergency department visits and hospital admissions for individuals

with lung disease.

• Ozone exposure also increases the risk of premature death from heart or lung disease.

• Children are at increased risk from exposure to ozone because their lungs are still developing

and they are more likely to be active outdoors, which increases their exposure.

Review of Science: Public Welfare

• Scientific evidence shows that repeated exposure to ozone during the growing season

damages sensitive vegetation. Cumulative ozone exposure can lead to reduced tree growth;

visibly injured leaves; and increased susceptibility to disease, damage from insects and harsh

weather.

• Sensitive plant species that are potentially at increased risk from ozone exposure include

trees such as black cherry, quaking aspen, ponderosa pine and cottonwood. These trees are

found across the United States, including in protected parks and wilderness areas.

Review of Science: Technical Record

• The reconsideration is based on the scientific and technical record used in the March 2008

review, which included more than 1,700 scientific studies.

• In this reconsideration, EPA is not relying on studies about the health and ecological effects

of ozone that have been published since the science assessment to support the 2008 review

was completed. However, EPA conducted a provisional assessment of these newer studies

and found they do not materially change the conclusions of the Agency's earlier science

assessment. More information on the provisional assessment is available at:

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=214003

DETERMINING COMPLIANCE: THE FORM OF THE STANDARDS

• When EPA sets air quality standards, it also must specify the measurement unit, or “form” of

each standard, which is used to determine whether an area is meeting the standards.

• For the primary standard, ozone concentrations are averaged over 8-hour periods. The fourthhighest 8-hour value at a particular monitor in the most recent year is averaged with the

fourth-highest 8-hour values from the previous two years. This produces a three-year

average. To meet the standard, the three-year average must be less than or equal to the level

of the standard. EPA did not reconsider the form of the primary standard. 3

• The proposed secondary standard is designed to protect sensitive vegetation from adverse

effects associated with cumulative ozone exposures during the three months when daytime

ozone concentrations are the highest. Specifically, the form of this new proposed secondary

standard is a “cumulative peak-weighted index,” called W126. The W126 index is calculated

by:

o “Weighting” each hourly ozone measurement occurring during the 12 daylight hours

(8:00 am to 8:00 pm) each day, with more weight given to higher concentrations.

This “peak weighting” emphasizes higher concentrations more than lower

concentrations, because higher concentrations are disproportionately more damaging

to sensitive trees and plants;

o Adding these 12 weighted hourly ozone measurements for each day, to get a

cumulative daily value;

o Summing the daily values for each month, to get a cumulative monthly value;

o Identifying the three consecutive months during the ozone season with the highest

index value, to get the cumulative seasonal index value, and;

o Averaging these maximum seasonal index values over three years.

• An area would meet the proposed secondary standard if the three-year average of the

cumulative seasonal index values is less than or equal to the level of the standard (i.e., 7-15

ppm-hours).

ESTIMATED TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED STANDARDS

• EPA, states and tribes will work together to implement the ozone standards that result from

the reconsideration.

• EPA is proposing an accelerated schedule for designating areas for the primary ozone

standard. Also, EPA is taking comment on whether to designate areas for a seasonal

secondary standard on an accelerated schedule or a 2-year schedule.

• The accelerated schedule would be:

o By January 2011: States make recommendations for areas to be designated attainment,

nonattainment or unclassifiable.

o By July 2011: EPA makes final area designations.

o August 2011 Designations become effective.

o December 2013: State Implementation Plans, outlining how states will reduce pollution

to meet the standards, are due to EPA.

o 2014 to 2031: States are required to meet the primary standard, with deadlines depending

on the severity of the problem. 4

MONITORING FOR OZONE

• In a separate rule, EPA proposed in July 2009 to modify the ozone air quality monitoring

network design requirements. The proposed modifications would better support alternative

ozone standards, including the 2008 ozone standards and the ozone standards proposed in

this reconsideration.

• EPA is not proposing in this reconsideration to further modify the minimum monitoring

requirements for ozone.

• The already proposed monitoring revisions would change minimum monitoring requirements

in urban areas, add new minimum monitoring requirements in non-urban areas, and extend

the length of the required ozone monitoring season in many states.

o EPA proposed that urban areas with populations between 50,000 and 350,000

people operate at least one ozone monitor.

o EPA proposed that states be required to operate at least three ozone monitors in

non-urban areas.

• There are approximately 1,200 ozone monitors operating in the United States, with about

1,000 sited to represent urban areas and 200 to represent non-urban areas.

o EPA estimates that about 270 new ozone monitors could be required to satisfy the

proposed monitoring requirement. We expect the number of new monitors to be

considerably less because of the flexibility including in the proposal.

• EPA is considering comments received on the proposed monitoring requirements and plans

to issue a final rule in coordination with the final ozone standards in August 2010.

BACKGROUND

What is Ozone?

• Ozone is found in two regions of the Earth’s atmosphere – at ground level and in the upper

regions of the atmosphere. Both types of ozone have the same chemical composition (O3).

While upper atmospheric ozone forms a protective layer from the sun’s harmful rays, ground

level ozone is the main component of smog.

• Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but forms through a reaction of

nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carbon monoxide (CO) and

methane (CH4) in the presence of sunlight.

• Emissions from industrial facilities and electric utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline

vapors, and chemical solvents are the major man-made sources of NOx and VOCs.

• Because sunlight and hot weather accelerate its formation, ozone is mainly a summertime air

pollutant. Both urban and rural areas can have high ozone levels, often due to transport of

ozone or its precursors from hundreds of miles away.

Ozone and Public Health

• Exposures to ozone can:

o Reduce lung function, making it more difficult for people to breathe as deeply and

vigorously as normal,

o Irritate the airways, causing coughing, sore or scratchy throat, pain when taking a

deep breath and shortness of breath,

o Inflame and damage the airways,

o Increase frequency of asthma attacks,

o Increase susceptibility to respiratory infection, and

o Aggravate chronic lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema and bronchitis.

• In some people, these effects can lead to:

o Increased medication use among asthmatics,

o More frequent doctors visits,

o School absences,

o Increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions, and

o Increased risk of premature death in people with heart and lung disease.

• Groups that are at greater risk from ozone include:

o People with lung disease, especially children with asthma.

o Children and older adults.

o People who are active outside, especially children and people who work outdoors.

Ozone and the Environment

• Ground-level ozone can have harmful effects on sensitive vegetation and ecosystems. When

sufficient ozone enters the leaves of a plant, it can:

o Interfere with the ability of sensitive plants to produce and store food, leading to

reduced growth, making them more susceptible to certain diseases, insects, other

pollutants, competition and harsh weather.

o Visibly damage the leaves of trees and other plants, harming the appearance of

vegetation in urban areas, national parks, and recreation areas.

• These effects can have adverse impacts on ecosystems, including loss of species and changes

to habitat quality, and water and nutrient cycles.

About the NAAQS Process

• The Clean Air Act requires EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)

for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. National standards

exist for six pollutants: ozone, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur

dioxide, and lead.

• For each of these pollutants, the Clean Air Act requires EPA to set the health-based or

“primary” standards at a level judged to be “requisite to protect the public health with an

adequate margin of safety” and establish secondary standards that are “requisite” to protect 6

public welfare from “any known or anticipated adverse effects associated with the pollutant

in the ambient air” including effects on vegetation, soils, water, wildlife, buildings and

national monuments, and visibility.

• The law also requires EPA to review the standards and their scientific basis every five years

to determine whether revisions are appropriate.

• The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) provides independent advice to the

EPA Administrator on the relevant scientific and technical information and on the standards.

HOW TO COMMENT

• EPA will accept public comments for 60 days after the proposed revisions to the ozone

standards are published in the Federal Register.

• Comments should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2005 -0172 and submitted

by one of the following methods:

o Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov),

o e-mail (a-and-r-docket@epa.gov),

o Mail (EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code 6102T, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460), or

o Hand delivery (EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Room 3334,

1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC).

FOR MORE INFORMATION

• To download the Federal Register notice about the proposed revisions to the ozone standards,

visit www.epa.gov/ozonepollution.

• Today’s proposal and other background information are also available either electronically at

http://www.regulations.gov, EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, or in

hardcopy at the EPA Docket Center’s Public Reading Room.

o The Public Reading Room is located in the EPA Headquarters Library, Room

Number 3334 in the EPA West Building, located at 1301 Constitution Ave., NW,

Washington, DC. Hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. eastern standard

time, Monday through Friday, excluding federal holidays.

o Visitors are required to show photographic identification, pass through a metal

detector, and sign the EPA visitor log. All visitor materials will be processed through

an X-ray machine as well. Visitors will be provided a badge that must be visible at

all times.

o Materials for this action can be accessed using Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR- 2005-

0172.

Editor's note -- The new standards have not been implemented yet. On December 8th, the EPA posted this notice on their website related to ozone emissions:

In January 2010 EPA proposed stricter standards for smog. As part of EPA's extensive review of the science, Administrator Jackson will ask the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) for further interpretation of the epidemiological and clinical studies they used to make their recommendation. To ensure EPA's decision is grounded in the best science, EPA will review the input CASAC provides before the new standard is selected. Given this ongoing scientific review, EPA intends to set a final standard in the range recommended by the CASAC by the end of July, 2011.

Opinion: New EPA Standards will Kill Missouri Jobs

by Rusty Kahrs

Before the end of the year, the US Environmental Protection Agency is expected to issue new national ozone standards that could post a huge threat to jobs and economic growth in Missouri.

in 2008, the EPA lowered the ozone standard from 80 parts per billion (ppb) to 75 ppb. The decision came after years of careful study and analysis and following a normal rulemaking process that allowed stakeholders to participate. Over the last two years, Missouri and the businesses affected by the new standard have worked hard to meet it.

Now the EPA wants to lower the standard again, to between 60 and 70 ppb. This time, though, the agency intends to act without conducting any new research or a proper rulemaking process. A lower standard may seem to make sense from a public health point of view, but the economic costs would far outweigh the very minor health benefits.

Under the Clean Air Act, areas that do not meet ozone standards are considered to be "non-attainment." If the standard is lowered below 70 ppb, all of Missouri's urban areas and many of the state's other counties would be non-attainment areas. (So would many national parks, by the way.)

Non-attainment status brings serious consequences:

--Major manufacuring companies that want to invest in facilities will be required to offset any new ozone emissions and install maximum emission reduction technology, potentially inhibiting economic development and job growth.

--Missouri may lose federal funding for highway and transit projects if the state cannot demonstrate that the projects will not increase ozone emissions.

--Missouri businesses will be less competitive because they would have to make costly investments in emissions reductions, which could rise to as much as $2.4 billion, according to a study by NERA and Sierra Research, two independent consulting firms.

The study also found that a 60 ppb standard imposed today would eliminate 68,000 jobs in Missouri that otherwise would have been created by 2020. The study also reported that a 60 ppb standard would cut the gross regional product by $6.1 billion and reduce disposable income by $3.2 billion.

Even if Missouri businesses and individuals installed every available emission control to limit ozone emissions, the Missouri Energy Forum estimates that the state would only achieve 12% of the necessary ozone reduction. We may not be able to meet the EPA's proposed lower standard no matter how hard we try.

Everyone wants cleaner air. What we don't want or need is an unnecessary and unprecedented federal rulemaking that will cost jobs, destroy the economic recovery, and devastate businesses in our state.

We need our elected officials in Washington to force the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA to step back, engage in a proper rulemaking process, consider both the costs and benefits of what it has proposed to do, and communicate them to the general public. Missourians deserve no less.

Rusty Kahrs is the Presiding County Commissioner in Pettis County and Chair of the Missouri Energy Forum.

Graves Blasts Deficits, Obama Health Plan, Cap & Trade

During a districtwide tour, Congressman Sam Graves came to Grant City last week and blasted the federal deficit, Obama's health plan, and Cap & Trade. Around 40-50 people attended the meeting at the Fairgrounds Building, in which he talked about his work in Washington and in which he took questions from constituents.



Regarding the deficit, he said that "if you did that, you would go broke." He said that the current deficit, which he said was higher than any in history, was "a legacy that we would have to pay back."



The theme of Graves' tour was "Main Street Matters," and he pointed to specific legislation that he said would be bad for small businesses. Cap and Trade would require all businesses to place caps on emissions or face a carbon tax. Proponents say that this legislation is necessary because they argue that man-made pollution will create long-term global warming that will result in rising ocean levels, leading to the displacement of millions or even billions of people. They envision worst-case scenarios in which low-level cities such as Boston or New Orleans or Florida would be flooded under by rising sea levels. But Graves said that the proposed solution was bad for this area because Missouri was a coal-dependent state that would be hit hard by any such legislation. Senator Claire McCaskill has publicly voiced concerns about Cap and Trade because of Missouri's coal dependence as well. He said that the result would be an estimated 60% increase in electricity rates for the state and that it would become more expensive to move goods across the country. Consequently, he said that it would be bad for the economy since it takes fuel to move goods. And Graves said that there was nothing to protect farms from these new offset requirements because he said that the EPA could overrule any agency who tries to exempt farms from Cap and Trade requirements.



"China and India love bills like this," said Graves. He said that a better alternative was an "all of the above" approach that he and his Republican colleagues were developing. Graves said that contrary to media reports that the Republicans had no ideas, he said that they did have ideas for energy policy but that the Democrats who control the committees would not give them a fair hearing. "We do have alternatives to the President's proposals and we have been trying to push these alternatives," he said.



Turning to healthcare, Graves turned to one of his favorite props, a huge copy of HR 3200, the Health Care Bill thousands of pages long, which he dropped on the table to demonstrate what he said was the ridiculous size of government. He said that the Democrats tried and failed to get that bill passed without letting people read it or knowing what it was about before the August recess. But he said that the August recess was bad for the bill's chances because people could read it and see for themselves what a bad bill it was. "We've read it and we don't like what we see," he said. For instance, on page 16, he said it states that after five years, no new individual plans could be written. In another section, according to Graves, it allows the government to set health insurance prices. Graves said that problem with a government-run healthcare system was that it would drive hospitals away and make healthcare even more inaccessible. "More and more hospitals are not taking Medicare or Medicaid anymore," he said. "And I don't want some bureaucrat deciding for me what healthcare choices I can make."



Graves accused the current Democratic leadership in the House of not listening to Republican ideas. "I've had a bill on associated healthcare plans that would drive down the cost of health insurance for three years, and it has never even gotten a hearing," he said. "We do have alternatives to what the Democrats are proposing. We are going around the county holding hearings on healthcare solutions, and the Democrats are calling us 'unamerican' because we get the word out that the way they are going to pay for all this is to cut Medicare by $500 billion to pay for all this."



Turning to the current budget deficit, Graves aid it was "absolutely unsustainable" and that the government was trying to balance it "on the backs of small businesses" with such things as surtaxes. He said that increased taxes were the "wrong approach" during a recession and that the current healthcare plan would add one to two trillion dollars to the deficit. "It doesn't mean we don't need changes," said Graves. For instance, he said allowing businesses to pool together to purchase insurance would drive rates down because he said that an insurance pool of 8,000 employees was more manageable from a risk standpoint than 10 employees. Graves said that would allow small businesses to offer health insurance to their employees. Graves said that another solution was tort reform, saying that people in states that have it have to pay for those who don't.



Talking about possible changes down the road for local jurisdictions, local authorities have worried about changes coming down the road that they would not be able to meet financially. Graves said that what was being considered was a revision to the Clean Water Act that would give the EPA jurisdiction over all waterways; currently, they only have jurisdiction over navigable waterways. Graves feared that this change would mean that the EPA could regulate runoff from farms. "That would be a huge infringement on property rights," he said.



Addressing rumors that the BRO Program, which has funded 15 new bridges in the county, would be dropped, Graves said that it was part of the Transportation Bill; he explained that transportation bills are authorized every six years and that it would not be up for renewal for another 18 months. The administration can ask for an extension, which they have in this case. In other words, he said that nothing was written in stone regarding the BRO Program.



Asked for his thoughts on the Fairness Doctrine, which required radio stations to give equal time to differing points of view, Graves said that it was "basic business sense" for outlets to put what people wanted on the air.



Talking about Social Security, Graves said that it was in "a lot of trouble" and that the administration had already announced that there would be no cost of living increase for next year despite the fact that prices were still going up.



Graves said that in order for the administration's agenda to pass, it would have to be done this year. "Bills like this have to get done this year, because they would never pass in an election year," he said. He said that the problem was that "we are always told that we have to support this or that bailout or it will be the end of the world." By contrast, Graves said that the economy comes and goes in cycles and that it would have recovered without all of the government bailouts that he said added to an already massive deficit. "I voted against President Bush's bailout last year, the GM bailout, the stimulus bill, and the spending bill," he said. "The economy will recover regardless of what the government does, but the goverment can prolong a recession by passing more taxes." By contrast, Graves said that the proper way to stimulate an economy was to cut taxes "or at least don't increase taxes." He said that as opposed to passing "Speaker Pelosi's baby" of stimulus bills, "Let's give the people more money thru tax cuts so that they can stimulate the economy themselves."



The problem according to Graves was that "bad legislation is easy to pass but hard to get rid of." For instance, he said that the Healthcare Bill was written by Chairman Henry Waxman's staff and HHS staff and consisted of what he called "regurgitated ideas" from the failed health care reform efforts of 1993. And he said that the Stimulus Bill was originally considered to be an infrastructure bill but that only 3% or so of the funds were actually devoted to that.



Asked a question about the Guantanamo detainees, he said that that "they can rot in Guantanamo as far as I'm concerned." He explained that he had read the intelligence reports on them for three hours after getting the necessary clearances and "it takes a whole week to get over what these folks were capable of." Graves said that terrorists only needed to be right one time and we needed to be right all the time in combatting terrorism. "We weren't thinking ahead before 9/11," he said. Graves said he wasn't buying the argument that America's interrogation policies had hurt our standing in the world. "People gripe about us, but we're the first country they turn to when they need help," he said. "And I do not want the UN coming in and telling us what we have to do with ourselves."



Graves said that he was more excited by the "tax revolts" than he had been by anything in a long time. He said that part of the reason that people were fed up was because the government was "overreaching on simple little stuff" and coming up with "goofy ideas." For instance, he said that the Cap and Trade bill included a tax per head on cattle, which he said that Chairman Henry Waxman was preparing to slip in at some point.

Regarding ethanol, Graves said that he was continuing to fight for more ethanol standards, which he said that Big Oil was trying to block. "A blend of 50% soy/diesel is 50% out of their market share," he said. He called arguments that ethanol was not clean "ridiculous" and that pushing to end our dependence on foreign oil through ethanol was a "win-win." He said that the CBO has debunked one of the main arguments against ethanol, that it would raise the price of food. Graves said that as an example of the kind of ridiculous arguments he heard against ethanol, the Kansas City Star did an article about how ethanol was going to raise the price of popcorn at movies.

Addressing No Child Left Behind, Graves said that it was currently in limbo because "nobody wants to act on it." It was supposed to be reauthorized last year; however, it never was. He said he would like to see three things changed. The first was that it should differentiate between schools that miss one or two criteria and schools that miss all 13. Currently, a school that misses one criteria narrowly is treated as failing, just like schools that miss all 13. The second idea that Graves said he wanted to see was for children on IEP's to be removed from No Child Left Behind standards; he said that the goals of the IEP program and No Child Left Behind were in conflict with each other. The third thing that Graves said needed to be changed was that No Child Left Behind should measure students as they progress through school, not measure last year's fourth grade against this year's fourth grade. He said that "there is a big difference between one fourth grade class and the next" and that the law of averages might work in bigger schools, but that it doesn't in smaller schools.

On the flip side, Graves said that vouchers were not a solution for failing schools because he said that would take away what made private schools unique. He said that once the government started funding private schools like they do public schools, they would start making regulations for them like they currently do public schools. "A lot of public schools are just as good as private schools," he said.