Posted on 09/09/2011 5:18:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
It’s become a staple for Republicans on the 2012 campaign trail to slam the Environmental Protection Agency as a job-killing government regulator. But Rick Perry was bashing EPA—on the stump and in practice—long before it was cool.
As governor of Texas, Perry has engaged in an outright war against EPA for years. Of course, tangling with federal environmental regulators isn’t unusual in the Lone Star State, where the economy deeply depends on the oil industry. Three of the world’s five biggest oil companies are headquartered in Houston, and Texas consumes more fossil fuels and spews more pollution than any other state.
But by any measure, Perry took the fight to new extremes, escalating long-simmering regulatory tension into a symbolic state-federal showdown. He repeatedly issued high-profile rebukes to EPA, refusing to comply with regulations and daring the agency to crack down with punitive measures that he knew could blow up politically in the middle of the 2012 presidential campaign. He channeled Texas regulators’ difficulties with EPA into his own swaggering narrative of a state oppressed by the federal government; he occasionally even threatened secession. Perry’s moves pumped up his national profile, but, critics argue, they hurt not only his state’s air quality but also the pocketbooks of the oil and gas corporations that are the lifeblood of its economy.
As far back as 2006—when former Texas Gov. George W. Bush, hardly known as an environmental enforcer, was in the White House—EPA repeatedly warned Perry that Texas’s unique system of regulating industrial air pollution violated the 40-year-old Clean Air Act.
Federal law requires big polluters such as oil refiners to control emissions of dangerous contaminants in each unit of a polluting plant to receive an operating permit. Texas has a “flexible permit” process that issues permits to facilities that simply measure emissions levels for plants as a whole, allowing plant operators to put controls on some—but not all—polluting units.
Last year, after many warnings, EPA gave Texas a deadline of June 30 to submit a plan for a revised permitting process that complies with federal law or to surrender its pollution-licensing authority to Washington. Instead of working with Texas companies to satisfy the federal law, Perry’s Commission on Environmental Quality refused to meet the deadline. When EPA regulators were forced to step in and take over the permitting program, Perry grabbed headlines by charging that EPA was “willing to kill Texas jobs and derail one of the strongest industries in the country.”
Perry gained a political pop, but some industry officials in Texas grumbled about the practical results. Instead of getting pollution permits from a single state agency, they now must go through a new layer of regulation, applying separately for some permits from EPA, a process that experts say adds time and cost and can slow construction schedules.
The “flexible-permit” battle set the stage for the politically charged Texas-versus-EPA showdown over global warming. Earlier this year, EPA rolled out new regulations to control the carbon pollution that causes global warming. The agency was legally required to do so under a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that carbon pollution endangers human health and is legally subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Not surprisingly, the controversial climate-change rules—which require factories, power plants, and oil refineries to use the best available technology to reduce carbon pollution—spurred a wave of pushback: 17 states and dozens of industry groups are suing the agency in a series of legal actions expected to drag on for years.
But most states took a standard precautionary measure: At the same time they are suing EPA, they are also working with the agency to find ways to comply with the rules. Then, if the states lose the lawsuits, they will already be on their way to meeting the new standards. States that do not comply with the rules—or need extra time to do so—will be subject to federal intervention, but those that opt for what experts call a “friendly FIP,” or federal implementation program, will dodge punitive measures and get help from EPA until they cut their pollution to permissible levels.
Texas alone opted for the unfriendly approach. It’s the only state that did not issue a plan for compliance—and Perry has made it clear that Texas has no intention of complying. The move was a blatant slap to the Obama administration—and once again gave Perry the national spotlight. Defying the climate rules offered him the perfect opportunity to loudly decry the science of global warming—which in his book Fed Up! he calls a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart under its own weight”—and to slam EPA as a “rogue agency” with an “activist mind-set” that has “targeted Texas.” Such rhetoric is viral catnip to the tea party voters who could help catapult Perry to the 2012 presidential nomination.
Unfortunately, the Texas oil and gas industry, which has bone-deep ties to the Republican establishment and is far and away Perry’s biggest financial contributor, was once again left holding the bag. Industry officials declined to speak on the record about the practical effects of Perry’s battle with EPA, but a number of contractors who had consulted with companies as they struggled to deal with the fallout of the governor’s political fight said that although the industry certainly opposes stronger pollution regulation, the regulatory uncertainty created by Perry’s moves has made its situation worse.
Polluters in other states that are suing the EPA at least know that no matter what the outcome of the lawsuits, the agency won’t punish them later; in Texas, there is no such certainty—and without it, some companies have scaled back their decisions to build, consultants familiar with the industry’s thinking say.
“It threw Texas economics into a state of flux,” according to an energy and environmental consultant who has worked with major companies in the state but spoke on condition of anonymity because of confidentiality agreements.
“The practical reality is that when you have a standoff like this, you still have to be authorized, you still have to get the permits,” the consultant said. “While that’s all being worked out in the courts, industry has no choice but to do it or risk being shut down.… You have to act as though whoever’s got the most-stringent regulations—in this case, the EPA—is going to win. Because of this, there were plants that chose not to expand. It was a standoff, but a company risks being shut down by the more stringent standard. Nobody in my circle—the major oil and gas companies—was going to take that chance.”
Mathew Tejada, executive director of Air Alliance Houston, a nonprofit group dedicated to reducing pollution in the infamously smoggy city, put it more bluntly: “To make a political point about his opinion on global climate change, Governor Perry has actually made it harder for Texas industry.”
Perry’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Republican strategists say, however, that although Perry’s move may have inconvenienced some in Texas industry, it could still pay off politically, especially with tea party voters. “It absolutely robbed business of certainty, yes,” said Michael McKenna, a GOP strategist and an expert on energy policy and politics. “Business guys get really nervous when they get caught in the switches on this kind of thing.”
But McKenna pointed out the growing divide between two groups that were once inseparable—industry and the new breed of tea party Republicans—and said that Perry appears poised to keep the backing of Big Business while firing up tea party voters.
“Rick Perry’s jihad against EPA is driven by what’s good for Texas voters and consumers,” McKenna said, “not necessarily what’s good for industry.”
I wish and hope Perry is elected president and then tells the EPA they are no longer needed. Sending every one of them into the unemployment line would be a great payback.
Will Rick Perry Unravel the Strange Consensus on Public Education?
Maybe the oil companies and refiners need to raise the price of their products going to the states that have congressmen and senators that support the EPA to offset the higher costs of compliance.
Unless you have driven around the area near the Houston ship channel, you cannot imagine the size and number of refineries in the area and just how much of our country’s gas and other products are produced here.
There is no hope for the inner cities as long as the schools are in control of the NEA teachers. The left in Texas has been bashing Perry for his record on education. For all I’m concerned, they can wish in one hand and s*** in the other and see which on fills up first.
My daughter and several of our close friends are teachers, and they are having a very hard time trying to get kids to understand that not everything is free. Those kids are so brainwashed by the time they hit middle school, they want every grade to be an A.
This post has been refuted twice on the thread now. Waiting for your defense of it?
And it isn't just the inner city schools -- now it's most everywhere.
A cry in the black education wilderness - LINKS to education, leftists and race.
They’re useful idiots for Obama 2012.
“Texas consumes more fossil fuels and spews more pollution than any other state”
Maybe that’s because it has a large population and second largest physical size of all the states? I’m sure the fact that it’s freakin’ BIG might cause some need for fuel use? Try driving across Houston like I do pretty much every work day.My commute is over 30 miles each way. Lots of people out on those freeways, going to that thing called WORK that so many seem to no longer participate in or even remember. That tends to cause the use of fuels.
As far as the pollution goes, well, gee, since fuel for MOST of the US is refined here, it might just cause some of that! Since most of the other states don’t refine much if any crude into fuels, of COURSE TX has higher pollution. It’s doing the dirty job for all those other places. Do they think that gas in their tank just falls from the sky or something?
The author is chock-full-O-FAIL.
Thank you for adding those facts.
Of course parts of Texas and Louisiana are pretty rough and polluted due to oil refineries and the oil business in general. So who cares! Don’t live there if you can’t handle it. F the EPA! We should be thanking those parts of Texas and Louisiana that produce refined oil products such as gasoline and diesel for the rest of the nation. But the eco-saboteurs in the EPA want to wreck all that . What do they care, they get their fat Federale paycheck no matter what impact their decisions have. No matter how many people are put out of jobs, no matter how many businesses they shut down
On January 21st 2013 Rick Perry should nuke the EPA. Deny them funding, whatever it takes to put these eco-parasites out on the streets looking for new jobs
The EPA knows Perry wants to skin them.
This is probably why the Rove-Bush-Hutchison push to unseat Perry in the last gubernatorial election. — But that didn’t work.
Romney supporters are the go-along-to-get-along-we’ll-pass-it-down-to-the-consumer crowd.
Perry’s right to go after the regulations and the litigation because in the end, we all pay and this government business of driving businesses out of the country or killing them off totally, must stop.
Rick Perry gets in and in 2013 he starts doing to the EPA what he he did to Texas trial lawyers.....I’ll be very happy. Matter of fact trial lawyers will be contributing great sums this year and next to keep Rick Perry out of the White House.
>>Dogmatism is no replacement for truth.
“crowning jewel... Countrywide Financial”
—Governor Rick Perry
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10202/
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.