Google+ Followers

Monday, December 30, 2013

The Secret Danger Liberals Don't Want You to Know: Fracking is Safe?

Hydraulic fracturing started out as an “exploding torpedo” back in 1865. Today, nearly 150 years later, the actual process has made giant technological strides, but now, it's the topic that’s explosive.
While the White House has been encouraging Christmas dinner table conversation to center around Obamacare, in my experience, it is fracking that came into the conversation—and when it did, the results had the potential to be as explosive as the early practice.
Over the holidays two young adults came home for Christmas. Somehow hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” came into the conversation. Dad, a reader of my column whose employment is also peripherally connected to the oil-and-gas industry, spoke up in support of the practice that has unleashed America’s natural resources and made us the world leader in energy production. His children, and their friends who had gathered in his home, were shocked and spouted the usual claims of water contamination, harsh chemicals, and flaming faucets. The topic became so explosive that his kids packed up and left before the festivities even began.
I was in California for Christmas. I visited a cousin in Napa Valley whose adult son is in the wine business. He was at her home when I arrived. She told him what I do and stated that he had many friends in the oil-and-gas business. I smiled and said: “I can talk oil, gas, coal, nuclear, fracking, whatever…” My cousin quickly interrupted and stated: “We probably don’t want to talk fracking.” I took the hint, and we moved on to another topic. Driving back to my brother’s house, I wondered: “When did fracking become an explosive topic.”
With the Christmas prime rib consumed, my family and friends were still gathered around the table. Once again fracking came up. I shared the previous two recent stories. One woman asserted that if her sister, who was arriving in a few days from Boulder, Colorado, was there and we talked fracking, the results would be explosive, too.
Because they are not in the industry, I found that the group gathered around our table had misconceptions about the process that they’d picked up from the media.
While I don’t have an exact date when the topic of fracking became explosive, I do know, from my speaking and writing on the topic, from radio interviews with listener call-ins, and private conversations, that the explosive reactions are due to a lack of understanding about the process—with the two biggest concerns being about water and chemicals.
As I’ve written previously, there are accusations that fracking is taking billions of gallons of water out of the hydrologic cycle. Especially in the southwest where water is scarce and drought conditions persist, this poses a problem.
The process of hydraulic fracturing has advanced from the first nitroglycerin “torpedo” that was shot down a well hole on April 25, 1865, and well acidizing that was used in the 1930s to enhance productivity, to the modern mix of high pressure, water, and chemicals—and it continues to evolve and become more economical.
In a piece addressing water used in fracking, The Economist describes the process this way: “Water injected at high pressure into rock deep underground during the process of hydraulic fracturing, or 'fracking,’ often returns to the surface as brine, having picked up a lot of salt on its journey. It is also contaminated with chemicals from the fracking process itself.”
Today, less and less freshwater is being used—especially in the arid southwest where water for drinking and agriculture is at a premium. A typical frack job can use as much as 5 million gallons of water and lasts about 3 days. The procedure can result in decades of oil or gas production.
With the development of new technologies, the fracking process can be done with brackish water that may be as much as ten times as salty as seawater. A recentreport from Reuters, titled “Fracking without freshwater at a west Texas oil field,” documents some of the advancements. Billions of gallons of brackish water are located far below the fresh water aquifers. Producers in west Texas are fracking with the brackish water from the Santa Rosa aquifer. They are then recycling the produced water—a byproduct of oil and natural gas drilling, and the flowback water—the fluid pushed back out of the well during fracking. Both forms of wastewater have historically been trucked to underground disposal wells.
A couple of months ago, I participated in the Executive Oil Conference in Midland, Texas where a panel of water experts addressed the crowd of more than 800 attendees and discussed the new technologies.
Now, instead of trucking wastewater to a remote location, mobile systems can treat the water onsite and condition it to meet almost any specification the driller wants—resulting in a reduction of expensive truck traffic. The portable systems can treat 20,000-30,000 barrels of water per day. For bigger frack jobs, additional units can be added—making the system totally flexible.
These new water solutions can reduce the total dissolved solids in the water from as high as 200,000 to below 200. For reference, the Environmental Protection Agency’s standard for drinking water is 500. The same water can be recycled and used over and over again. Addressing the new technologies, James Welch, Global Business Development Manager, Water Solutions, with Halliburton, told the crowd: “Produced water is not a waste. It is an opportunity. It is an offset to freshwater usage.” Halliburton is able to fracture with water that's 280,000 TDS.
The result of these new procedures is, according to The Economist: “Clean water …pure enough to be used for irrigation, or even drinking water. …Alternatively, it can be re-injected into the ground during the next frack.”
Rather than taking water out of the hydrologic cycle, the oil-and-gas industry is actually often taking formerly unusable water, using it in fracking and then cleaning it up to a level where it can be introduced into the cycle as either irrigation or drinking water.
Stan Weiner, Chairman and CEO at STW Resources, was one of the panelists. He summed up the new water solutions by saying: “Now we’ve figured out a way to clean it up economically. There’s no reason not to use it. Companies nationwide, worldwide, all want to do this. We get no resistance from them. They want to see it work. It’s a go.”
GE (as addressed in The Economist), Apache Corp. (as covered by Reuters), Halliburton, and STW Resources are just a handful of the many companies, which are developing revolutionary water treatment processes that neuter one of the biggest arguments against fracking.
In our Christmas conversation, someone asked: “Why do they need chemicals? Why don’t they just frack with water?” She’d heard stories.
I explained that the so-called chemicals are needed to provide lubrication for the tiny particles of sand that hold open microscopic cracks in the “fractured” rock that allow the oil or gas to escape. “As a woman, I am sure you’ve had your fingers swell. That makes it hard to get your rings off.” She nodded. “What do you do then?” I queried. “Soap my hands up,” she replied.
That is the role the chemicals play in the fracking process. But those chemicals are now mostly food-based and can be consumed with no ill effects—both Governor Hickenlooper (D-CO) and CNBC’s Jim Cramer have had a drink.
So, even if the chemicals did somehow defy geology and migrate several miles from the fracked well through the layers of sedimentary rock to the aquifer, they are not harmful.
To illustrate the point, I am in the process of organizing what I am calling “the great New Mexico fracktail party.” I have several state legislators lined up—and am looking for more. I need to find an operator who is willing to invite us onsite when a frack job is being done. The legislators, industry folks, and anyone else who wants to participate, will be invited to the location with cocktail glass in hand (umbrella, fruit, olive—whatever—included). With media cameras rolling we’ll pour the fracfluid from the tank to our glasses and toast to American energy freedom.
My sister-in-law asked: “What about the flaming faucets?” “Those are real,” I explained. “But they have nothing to do with fracking.” Natural gas, or methane, was found in water wells long before any fracking was done in the area. In fact, it was the gassy smell that often alerted explorers to the potential oil and gas in the region. Oil-and-gas drilling didn’t cause the flaming faucet phenomenon. Quite the contrary. The presence of gas near the surface brought about the “don’t smoke in the shower” adage. While the water is harmless to consume, a gas build up in the house could cause an explosion.
Lies about hydraulic fracturing are rampant. If fossil fuel opponents can spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about fracking—with the goal of causing a federal fracking ban, they can virtually stop oil-and-gas development in America, as it is estimated that 90 percent of producing wells have been fracked. Without American ingenuity and increasing production, gasoline prices and utility bills will skyrocket. Economic ruin will reign. America will, once again be beholden to increasingly hostile foreign sources.
A fracking conversation shouldn’t be explosive. Today’s hydraulic fracturing is really benign, American technology that is ecologically sound and economically advantageous. Keep these facts in mind. As my stories illustrate, not everyone will listen—but if more people, such as my brother and sister-in-law, know the truth they can help de-fuse the explosive conversation.

Veteran Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Calls Climate Scientists’ Claims That More Sea Ice Proves Global Warming ‘Just Really Despicable’

At his Saturday Summary (12/28 here) veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi comments on how humiliated global warming alarmist scientists are trying to save face by claiming that all the new polar sea ice proves global warming.
Antarctic sea ice has been approaching record highs and embarrassed alarmist scientists are scrambling to explain why.
After presenting his weather information, at the 7:10 mark Joe gets to the nitty-gritty on climate.
Bastardi 12_28
Global sea ice 1 million square kilometers above normal. Cropped from Saturday Summary.
Now, I’ve got to do this because the global warming agenda is just really despicable in trying to claim the increase in Antarctic sea ice, opposite of what they said several years ago, and now they are trying to deny they said that, is a sign of global warming.”
Makes you wonder if climate scientists put water in the oven at home to try to make ice cubes.
Arctic sea ice has leveled off
Joe also shows Arctic sea ice has actually leveled off over the last few years, attributing the earlier reduction to oceanic cycles.
Later at the 8:15 mark Joe again sharply criticizes the shenanigans of climate alarmists, accusing scientists of lying with respect to Antarctic sea ice increase:
I’ll tell you what, now I cannot say how despicable it is to see the lying that is going on as you watch the Antarctic ice shelf continue to increase [...] It’s just amazing listening to all this going on.”
Joe later says that what’s going on in Antaractica is just a classic example of cyclical climate.
One thing is clear: climate science shows that scruples are in short supply within the field.
- See more at:

1969 : Scientists Worried About A New Ice Age

ScreenHunter_992 Dec. 28 06.36   ScreenHunter_997 Dec. 28 06.46
ScreenHunter_989 Dec. 28 06.25
ScreenHunter_993 Dec. 28 06.37
ScreenHunter_994 Dec. 28 06.38

Climate change debate ready to heat up in 2014 as major aspects of Obama’s climate plan come to fruition?

Policies surrounding climate change are poised to heat up in 2014 as major aspects of President Obama's climate plan come to fruition.

The Environmental Protection Agency is expected to announce historic final standards aimed at curbing carbon emissions from the nation's power plants in June, but not before lawmakers and industry groups give their two cents on the issue.
Next year, Republicans are expected to continue the crusade against the administration's climate regulations, which they have dubbed the "war on coal." 

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who sits on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW), and Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, blasted the administration and EPA consistently throughout 2013 on the "faulty" science behind the new climate regulations and a "lack of transparency."

Vitter said in his year-end review of Obama's Climate Action Plan that Republicans on EPW will continue to push for oversight hearings on the administration's climate agenda in 2014.

Vitter touts on his website that his specific focus on energy issues includes "shedding light on EPA overregulation that is crushing jobs and preventing a strong economic recovery."

He will get his chance to assail federal officials when the environment committee holds climate change hearings. According to a congressional source, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), EPW chairwoman, wil announce the first hearing, on the president's climate agenda, for Jan. 16.

Also, expect noise from oil groups and environmentalists in 2014 as the State Department's final environmental impact statement on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is due to be released in the coming weeks. 

The debate surrounding Keystone XL can hurt Obama's climate agenda if he goes against his promise to reject the pipeline, and it is found to significantly contribute to carbon emissions. 

As the U.S. attempts to lead other nations toward strong climate standards, the expansion of oil explorations in the Arctic will be a prime subject of debate in 2014. 

As for the rest of the Senate's agenda in early 2014, EPW plans to tackle chemical safety, oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and oversight of the renewable fuel mandate, among other issues.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's top three priorities include a markup on the nuclear waste bill introduced by a bipartisan group of senators in April, and bringing back the Shaheen-Portman energy efficiency bill, an aide to committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

EPA should be eliminated as the threat to the nation it has become

The Supreme Court has taken up another case based on the Environmental Protection Agency’s campaign of lies that carbon dioxide is the cause of “climate change” and claims about the quality of air in the United States. The Court is composed of lawyers, not scientists.

At this point in the present era, the Court has made rulings that run contrary to the original, clear intent of the U.S. Constitution and has wrought havoc on our society.

In 1973 it ruled that the killing of unborn babies was protected and millions since then have been deliberately killed. It extended protection to sodomy and same-sex marriage. It is destroying the fabric of our society that has served Americans well for more than two hundred years.

It ruled that the Affordable Health Care Act was a “tax”, enabling the Obamacare to be unleashed with the subsequent loss of health care plans by millions of Americans, often the loss of their personal physician, and the requirement that deeply-held religious opposition to contraception and abortion be negated by a law that requires their beliefs be overruled and denied.

In 2007, I wrote a commentary that was published in The Washington Times. I criticized a Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide (CO2) was a “pollutant”, opening the door to the EPA’s rapacious intent to control all aspects of our lives based on this lie that is used to justify its war on coal-fired plants that provide nearly half of all the electrical energy we use daily.  “CO2 is not a pollutant,” I wrote, “It exists in the Earth’s atmosphere and every blade of grass and every tree depends on it.” It plays no role whatever in the Earth’s climate

The Clean Air Act and revisions passed in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990s. The original regulation of air pollution was a good idea, as were the laws affecting clean water, but the EPA has since used pollution to impose a vast matrix of regulations that do not reflect the fact that the nation’s air and water is now as clean as it ever can be.

Carbon monoxide emissions have fallen from 197 million tons to 89 million tons. Nitrogen oxide emissions fell from 27 million tons to 19 million tons. Sulfur dioxide emissions fell from 3l million tons to 15 million tons. Lead emissions fell by more than 98%.  Particulate emissions (soot) fell by 80%. The air in the U.S. is considerably cleaner, but the EPA’s assertions continue to be made to expand its regulatory power and to attack the sovereignty of the states.

A case that was recently argued before the Court is another EPA effort to rewrite the Clean Air Act, asserting that it be given authority to regulate the flow of alleged “pollution” between “upwind” states and those who receive particulates and gases under its control. Some 27 states are considered “upwind” and those states along with all others have their own air control laws. In states that are more heavily industrialized and which have a large number of coal-fired plants on which the EPA wants to impose expensive standards that have no basis in fact.

A coalition led by Texas of more than a dozen other states brought a case, Environmental Protection Agency v. EME Homer City Generation, opposing the EPA’s regulatory re-write of the Clean Air Act. In August 2012, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the EPA which appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Wall Street Journal noted that “The D.C. Circuit only rarely overturns EPA rules, which shows how out of bounds the cross-state regulation is. The Supreme Court should overturn it for violating the federalist intentions of Congress, but there is also the added judicial incentive to show this increasingly rogue agency that it can’t rewrite the law as it pleases.”

The U.S. has been harmed by the many laws whose justification is based on the totally unscientific hoax regarding CO2. During the 101st and 111th Congresses, there were 692 laws introduced containing the term “greenhouse gas” when, in fact, CO2 is NOT such a gas, playing no role whatever in trapping warmth to affect the weather and/or climate of the Earth.

Stringent domestic laws and regulations, moreover, do not take into consideration the role of many other nations whose emissions are far greater than those produced here. However, reducing their emissions will have no effect on the Earth’s climate. The Earth is in what will likely be a lengthy cycle of cooling based on reduced solar radiation. It recently snowed in Egypt and in Israel where snow has long been a rarity.

Obama administration’s “war on coal”

The Obama administration’s “war on coal” has used the EPA to inflict an attack on the nation’s capacity to provide energy and the EPA has not ceased from using every ruling it has imposed to degrade the nation’s ability to maintain and expand the industrial base it needs to provide for economic growth, an increase in jobs, and the sovereign right of states to determine their own response to the need for clean air. The U.S. is a republic composed of separate republics.

At this point, control of the nation’s air and water quality should be returned in full to the states and the EPA should be eliminated as the threat to the nation it has become. The Supreme Court has played a role in this threat, ruling without any attention to real science, traditional values, and the clear intent of the Constitution.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Coal Must Embrace All-Out Battle with Eco-Bullies Meekly accepting blame for climate change dooms the industry and the greater economy.?

Imagine you have been wrongfully arrested, charged with murdering a child. Although the evidence against you is sketchy, the police have no other suspects, and with the government anxious to appease those demanding justice, your case is rushed to trial. Your lawyer decides that with public sentiment strongly against you, the best course of action is to plead guilty and to throw yourself at the mercy of the court.
But then, police find eyewitnesses who place you miles from the scene of the crime when it occurred. Your lawyer even discovers that the victim’s body has yet to be found — and there is now some question as to whether the child ever existed. With a sense of relief you head to court, confident this new information will lead to the case being dismissed.

But to your astonishment, your lawyer does not even bring up evidence of your innocence. Instead he pleads for leniency, which gives the court moral authority to punish you for a crime you never committed and perhaps never even happened.
This insane scenario is analogous to what is happening to one of America’s most important industries and the source of 40% of the nation’s electricity: coal. Accused of causing dangerous climate change due to its carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, coal-fired electric power is in the crosshairs of a president anxious to be seen as taking action to stop global warming and extreme weather.
That global warming stopped 17 years ago, and extreme weather has not increased despite an 8% rise in CO2? This is never referenced by President Barack Obama or his Environmental Protection Agency.
That even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is now backing away from several of its most important claims of human-caused climate Armageddon? Also ignored.
Coal-fired electricity must be replaced with “clean energy” to save the climate, they still say. This approach completely disregards what happened in Europe when that approach was tried: economies collapsed and people froze to death, driven into poverty by unmanageable energy bills.
You would think the coal industry would launch an all-out media blitz, taking full advantage of the current temperature plateau and the IPCC’s retreat on the science. They could also reference the thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers cited by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, which clearly demonstrate that the science backing the EPA’s position is rapidly disintegrating.
A reasonable person would expect coal to proclaim their industry’s innocence of the climate crime of which they stand accused, using the overwhelming evidence that global warming fears are greatly exaggerated.
But, no, with only a few exceptions, coal leaders plead guilty to producing “climate-change emissions,” as Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) labeled CO2 at the massive coal rally in Washington, D.C., in October. Rather than contest the science propping up climate fears and the anti-coal movement, they throw themselves at the mercy of the court of public opinion, complaining that hundreds of thousands of coal sector workers will lose their jobs and that prices will skyrocket as the nation’s least expensive source of electricity is turned off.
The relaxed response from climate activists to these messages tells us that this approach has no chance of working.
Groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council clearly recognize that the arguments presented at politically correct coal rallies can’t hold a candle to “saving the planet” in the eyes of the press, not to mention in the eyes of the public and politicians outside of coal-dependent areas of the country.
In fact, the Obama administration has already accepted that employment in the coal sector will be ruined and that energy prices will soar, especially in states that currently enjoy low electricity costs due to extensive coal usage. Appearing to be on the side of Mother Earth trumps concerns about the welfare of people from regions of the country that generally oppose the president already.
The only way to save coal is to convince opinion leaders, and thus the public, that the administration’s excuse for killing it is misguided. There is no climate crisis happening. The science that supports climate fears is unreliable.
Most industry and political leaders who support coal understand this very well. So why do so few of them bring this up?
Apparently, they stay quiet because they would rather see the coal sector in America die than risk serious conflict with activists and their government and media allies. Many leaders in the coal sector are wealthy enough that the end of coal will not significantly hurt them personally. They can simply retire or quietly move to other sectors of the economy as coal mines close and miners are forced into unemployment and poverty.
Dedicated coal sector workers must demand that their leaders defend the sector vigorously, or pass on the responsibility to those who will.
They need to remind their spokespeople that you get the most flak when you are over the target. If climate activists are not mounting counter-demonstrations to rallies and other meetings in support of coal, then sector spokespeople are not doing their jobs properly.
A quote from Patrick Henry’s speech in 1775 at St. John’s Church in Richmond, Virginia, sums up the inevitability of intense conflict with climate activists if coal is to survive:
Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace but there is no peace.  … The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

Is the Administration trying to regulate Hydraulic Fracturing through OSHA?

The federal rulemaking process depends on sound science, especially when human lives are at stake. A proposed rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would stiffen regulations for crystalline silica, a group of minerals used in numerous industries, including hydraulic fracturing. Prolonged exposure to respirable crystalline silica is associated with silicosis, an incurable disease that causes impaired respiratory function and scarring of the lungs. Unfortunately, OSHA’s proposed rule fails the sound science test.

OSHA’s rule relies on outdated data and ignores declines in silicosis mortality rates, according to Susan Dudley and Andrew Morriss of The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center. Moreover, the rule would impose enormous costs on American manufacturers, including oil and gas companies involved in hydraulic fracturing.  As Dudley and Morriss explain in a public interest comment submitted to OSHA:

OSHA faces multiple cha in devising a regulatory approach that will meet its statutory goal of reducing significant risk. However, the greatest challenge to reducing risks associated with silica exposure is not lack of will (on the part of employers or employees) but rather lack of information. Unfortunately, OSHA’s proposed rule contributes little in the way of new information, particularly since it is largely based on information that is at least a decade old, which is significant given the rapidly changing conditions observed between 1981 and 2004. [Emphasis added]

In addition to using old data, OSHA “does not recognize or attempt to explain the decline in silicosis mortality” over the last three decades, according to Dudley and Morriss. As the following chart from the Centers for Disease Control shows, silicosis deaths dropped 93 percent between 1968 and 2002.

By ignoring the precipitous decline in silicosis mortality, OSHA “misses opportunities to identify and encourage successful risk-reducing practices,” according to Dudley and Morriss. In other words, OSHA’s incomplete analysis has the potential to hurt the very workers it is designed to protect.
Dudley and Morriss also find that OSHA’s flawed approach is “certain to overstate the risk-reduction benefits attributable to the rule,” adding that “OSHA’s estimated benefits (of the stricter standards) are less than what would be projected if past trends were simply to continue.” The problem, of course, is that it is impossible to properly assess costs and benefits without recent data.

OSHA’s proposed rule represents the Obama administration’s latest attempt to undermine America’s shale energy renaissance, which would not be possible without hydraulic fracturing. By OSHA’s own calculations, the proposed rule would impose as much as $658 million in annual compliance costs, with the hydraulic fracturing industry incurring annual costs of up to $28.6 million.

OSHA has a statutory obligation to protect workers. But regulations, particularly those designed to protect human health, should be based on sound science and thorough analysis. OSHA fails on both counts, relying on outdated data and failing to discuss declining silicosis mortality rates. OSHA’s proposed rule not only threatens to undermine hydraulic fracturing operations responsible for America’s domestic energy boom, but it is also a disservice to the workers that OSHA is obligated to protect.

Kreutzer Discusses Impact of Carbon Tax

Over the summer, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) hosted a conference entitled, “A U.S. Carbon Tax: The Rest of the Story.” We picked experts from both academia and policy analysis to demonstrate that the American public has been getting a very biased perspective on the case for a carbon tax. Even if we accept at face value the official position of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on the natural physical science of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, the economic science doesn’t automatically point to a U.S. carbon tax the way its proponents would have us believe.

I have already posted about my own presentation on the panel (concerning some surprising facts about the “social cost of carbon”), the talk given by Dr. Ross McKitrick on the alleged “double dividend” of carbon taxes, and the presentation by Dr. Kenneth Green on why he changed his mind about carbon taxes. In this final post, I’ll cover the remarks from Dr. David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation.

Kreutzer was the final speaker on our panel, and as so often happens he kept his talk brief in order to leave time for Q&A with the audience. But when you watch the video below, you’ll see that he provided a powerful conclusion to our formal remarks. By summarizing the quantitative estimates he and his colleagues developed, Kreutzer have a sense of how harmful a carbon tax would be to a typical American family. He also gave some frank remarks about the nature of Washington politics when it comes to “tax reform.”

Kreutzer’s Presentation With Highlights

Below is the video for Kreutzer’s presentation, or the YouTube link is here. Underneath the video I highlight key moments from his talk.

  • 0:00 – 1:00 Kreutzer explains that he and his colleagues (especially programmer Kevin Dayaratna) at the Heritage Foundation took the EIA’s code for its National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) as the basis for their own simulation of the economy—and in particular the energy sector—in response to a hypothetical carbon tax. Specifically, Heritage estimated the impact of the Boxer-Sanders carbon tax proposal, which starts at $20/ton on CO2 and rises at 5% per year.

Here is a chart from the report showing the effect on employment of a carbon tax:

  • 1:20 – 2:30  Kreutzer wants to clarify thinking on the economic impact of a tax, to distinguish the deadweight loss from the revenue gain. He asks the audience to imagine a hypothetical $3 million/gallon tax on dairy products. Perhaps when the dust settles, Bill Gates ends up being the only person to buy one gallon of ice cream per year, with no other American buying any dairy products again. In D.C., Kreutzer explains, they could then take that $3 million and give every American a penny. Thus the whole thing would be “revenue neutral.” Yet this obviously would understate the economic devastation such an outrageous tax would wreak, as it destroyed the dairy industry and made consumers go without milk and other dairy products. Kreutzer’s point, of course, is that merely insisting on a “revenue-neutral carbon tax” doesn’t protect Americans from the economic harms of higher energy prices.
  • 2:50 Kreutzer remarks that based on his experience in D.C., what Congress means by “revenue neutral” is that, “We promise to spend all this new money.” In other words, the government will find ways to “return the money to citizens” by spending it through various channels.
  • 3:10 – 5:00 Kreutzer explains that by 2030, the carbon tax causes a family of four to have a reduction in real income of $1,000 per year. This is because energy prices increase. The severe reduction in coal-generated electricity causes a gross thirty percent drop in output, with the gap being partially replaced by renewables, natural gas, nuclear, and what Washington euphemistically calls “conservation”—meaning Americans will partially deal with the carbon tax simply by using less electricity.
  • 5:00  Referring to the reliance of the U.S. energy sector on carbon-intensive fuels, Kreutzer quips, “Saying we’re going to have a carbon tax and it’s a ‘tax on bads’ is like saying we’re going to have a tax on eggshells but not on eggs.”  Thus, Kreutzer says that given current technological realities, a carbon tax is equivalent to an energy tax.
  • 5:30 – 6:30  In the Heritage simulation, by the year 2016 the carbon tax has caused (relative to the baseline) total employment to fall by 400,000 jobs, while gasoline prices rise by 20 cents per gallon, and electricity prices by almost 20 percent. Coal output drops massively.
  • 7:00 – 8:15  Kreutzer explains why the political purpose of a carbon tax is to raise revenue, not to lower the Earth’s temperature.

  • 8:30 – 9:30 Kreutzer makes the brilliant point that if the point of a carbon tax deal were to improve the efficiency of the tax code, then we should currently see a very well-designed tax code except for its lack of a carbon tax. But of course we don’t see that—the current tax code is ludicrously inefficient. Kreutzer’s point is that politicians will take fancy textbook demonstrations from economists in order to justify a tax increase to raise spending. They most certainly will not implement an “efficient” tax reform.


David Kreutzer provided a straight-talk conclusion to the Institute for Energy Research’s carbon tax conference. Our panelists showed quite decisively that in both theory and practice, a new carbon tax will not be “good for the economy” as many people allege. In practice, any politically feasible carbon tax deal will make the tax code more distortionary (in terms of conventional economic growth), will raise energy prices, and will slow the labor market’s recovery.

Friday, December 20, 2013

GOP lawmakers accuse EPA of muzzling scientists on climate regulations?

Lindsay Abrams writing for the liberal Wed Site Salon . Com


Thursday, Oct 10, 2013 Carbon capture technology isn’t living up to its promise

A new report finds we're way behind on technology that's supposed to help mitigate climate change

If we’re not going to reduce our use of fossil fuels enough to have a meaningful impact on climate change, we need to find another way to limit the amount of CO2 we release into the atmosphere. That’s the idea, at least, behind carbon capture and sequestration, or C.C.S., technology. And according to the New York Times, scientists and engineers generally agree that such technology will be necessary for meeting international emissions goals.

In reality, through, C.C.S. doesn’t seem to be on track to fulfill the vital role assigned to it. A new survey from the Global CCS Institute found that there are only 65 large-scale carbon capture projects currently underway worldwide, down from 75 in the past year. The Times explains:

The International Energy Agency expects carbon capture and storage to become the third largest way to reduce carbon emissions by 2050, behind energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources like solar and wind power, and ahead of nuclear power and a switch to lower-carbon fuels. The Global CCS Institute’s report found that “while C.C.S. projects are progressing, the pace is well below the level required for C.C.S. to make a substantial contribution to climate change mitigation.”

But the technology for capturing carbon has not been proved to work on a commercial scale, either here or abroad. The Energy Department canceled its main project demonstrating the technology in 2008. It would have turned coal into a mixture of gases and captured the carbon dioxide before combustion. The department eventually started over with a plan to burn coal in pure oxygen so that the flue gases would be nearly pure carbon dioxide. That plan was aided by financing from the federal stimulus program, although construction has not begun.

Last month, the EPA unveiled new emissions regulations that would require all new commercial plants to install carbon-capture technology. Many argued that, due to the technology’s prohibitively high cost, the regulations will be impossible for coal-fired plants to meet. The administration said at the time that it’s counting on innovation to eventually lower costs.
But with models predicting unprecedented shifts in global temperatures by as soon as mid-century, C.C.S isn’t shaping up to be the silver bullet we might have hoped it would be.
           Republican leaders on the House Science Committee are accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of disregarding science in its push to impose carbon dioxide limits on power plants.

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, and 20 other Republican lawmakers sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday, claiming the agency has "muzzled" members of its independent science advisory board.

The EPA released a proposal in September that would set emissions caps for new coal-fired power plants and would likely require the industry to use carbon-capture technology, which involves burying the carbon underground.

Critics of the proposed rule say the technology, which is still under development, is too expensive, not commercially available and poses safety risks.

The lawmakers claim the agency is ignoring dissenting voices on its science advisory board, which recommended a review of the science underpinning the newest power plant rule.

A senior official at EPA recently deflected the scientists' criticisms by claiming that the rule, which has yet to be finalized, doesn't need to address carbon dioxide storage, the lawmakers said.
“We are concerned about the agency’s apparent disregard for the concerns of its science advisors,” the lawmakers wrote. “Science is a valuable tool to help policymakers navigate complex issues.  However, when inconvenient facts are disregarded or when dissenting voices are muzzled, a frank discussion becomes impossible."

The agency maintains the carbon-capture technology has been "adequately demonstrated" based on a government-funded projects under construction in Mississippi and three planned projects in Texas, California and Canada.

The lawmakers said the proposed mandates in the rule would "create regulatory burdens" and "litigation risks" for the coal industry and would result in the loss of American jobs.
“The EPA’s proposed power plant regulations will put Americans out of work and will make electricity more expensive and less reliable," the lawmakers wrote. "It is misleading and dangerous for EPA to quietly dismiss inconvenient facts and ignore the consequences of its costly regulations. Americans deserve honesty.”

In October, Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Rep. Ed Whitfield, R-Ky., released draft legislation to block the EPA's proposal to limit emissions from new power plants and require the agency to set new rules that incorporate "commercially feasible" technologies.

The Manchin-Whitfield proposal has yet to be officially introduced

Thursday, December 19, 2013


or all the outcry over fracking, surprisingly little is said about flaring, unarguably the most wasteful, environmentally damaging byproduct of the new American oil and gas boom.
Thanks to a lack of pipeline infrastructure to move it and collapsed prices for natural gas, drillers across the Bakken shale of North Dakota–one of the richest oil finds of the new revolution–are burning off gas that surfaces as they pump oil from the ground. As The New York Times’ Clifford Krauss reports this morning, the glow from 1,500 flares across the region is not only more visible from space than the city lights of Minneapolis, but it also creates six million tons of carbon dioxide annually, the equivalent of three medium-sized coal-fired power plants.
Then there’s the waste. The burned gas, The Times estimates, could provide enough fuel to heat a million U.S. homes.
But Statoil, Norway’s national oil company, may have a solution. The company, which has been rapidly expanding its operations both on- and off-shore in the United States, has teamed with General Electric to develop a “compression box” for trapping and processing the gas on-site, allowing it to be used, rather than wasted. Krauss explains:
The first step of the process is to strip out of the gas valuable natural gas liquids like butane and propane, which can be used for petrochemical production. The liquids can then be put in pressurized tanks and delivered by truck to processing plants. The rest of the gas can be compressed and stored in what G.E. calls “C.N.G. in a box.”
The device was originally designed to be a mobile natural gas station to fill up cars, trucks and buses. But Statoil plans to use the boxes to fuel equipment, particularly drilling rigs that have already been converted to replace 40 percent of the diesel they burn with gas.
By Statoil’s calculations, if all the rigs in the Bakken were converted to run even partly on natural gas, more than 60 million cubic feet of natural gas — or roughly a fifth of the gas now being flared — could be saved every day.
The cost, Krauss says, is modest as well: About $1.5 million per unit. Statoil plans to have eight prototype units up and running by the end of next year.
Here’s hoping they work as well as planned, and other companies integrate the technology, too. No matter how plentiful natural gas has become in the United States, it is not infinite.

Warmist Are Still Wrong No Global Warming for 17 years 3 months’ — A Monckton Analysis

'The RSS data for September 1996 to November 2013 show no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months, despite a continuing record rate of increase in CO2 concentration.'

The Long Pause just got three months longer – it’s now 17 years 3 months
The RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies for November 1996 to October 2013 had shown no global warming for exactly 204 months – the first dataset to show the full 17 years without warming specified by Ben Santer as showing the models got it wrong.
After the sharp global cooling in November, the RSS data for September 1996 to November 2013 show no global warming at all for 17 years 3 months, despite a continuing record rate of increase in CO2 concentration.

The models are badly underestimating the magnitude of natural influences on global temperature, not the least of which is the recent decline in solar activity. They are also badly overestimating the warming effect of CO2.

Since CO2 does cause some warming. it is more likely than not that global warming will return eventually. Not at anything like the predicted rate, but it will return.

It is prudent, then, to look not only at the now embarrassingly lengthening Long Pause, which a sufficiently energetic El Niño could bring to an end, but also at the now embarrassingly widening Gaping Gap between the +0.23 Celsius/decade the models predict for the first half of this century and the –0.02 Celsius/decade that is actually happening. The Gaping Gap is likely to remain, and to widen, even if global warming resumes.

How much warming does the IPCC predict?
Before we get to the Gaping Gap graph and the Global Warming Prediction Index that is calculated from it, we first establish exactly how much global warming the most recent IPCC Assessment Report predicts.

It is this prediction that will be benchmarked against measured real-world temperature change.
The diagram above is an adaptation of Figure 11.33ab of the IPCC’s 2013 Fifth Assessment Report, which backcasts to January 2005 the combined global-warming projections of up to 34 computer models under each of four radiative-forcing scenarios.

The diagram shows the models predict the world will warm till 2050 at a rate equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade (central estimate 0.23 Cº/decade), or 1.33-3.33 Cº/century (central estimate 2.33 Cº/century).

The range of projected warming, 0.4-1.0 Cº over 30 years (again equivalent to 0.13-0.33 Cº/decade or 1.33-3.33 Cº/century), is also explicitly stated at paragraph of the Fifth Assessment Report.
So there is no doubt about how much warming the models relied upon by the IPCC are predicting. Till 2050, they are predicting warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century. This is below the 3.3 Cº/century they predict till 2100 because they imagine the rate of global warming will accelerate in the second half of the century.

The monthly Gaping Gap graph
The Gaping Gap graph displays the IPCC’s range of projections of global warming as an orange region, equivalent to the region bounded by the two dark red trend arrows in the IPCC’s diagram shown earlier.
The IPCC’s mid-range prediction, the thick red line, is that the world should have warmed by 0.21 Cº since January 2005, equivalent to 0.23 Cº/decade or 2.33 Cº/century.

The graph directly compares that official mid-range prediction with the bright-blue trend-line on the official temperature measurements, taken as the arithmetic mean of the global mean satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies from Remote Sensing Systems, Inc., and the University of Alabama at Huntsville. The two datasets are downloaded in full every month so that the graph takes full account of any revisions that may have been made since the previous month.

The dark blue spline-curve shows the monthly data. The thick bright blue trend-line on the real-world data shows global cooling at 0.01 Cº since January 2005, equivalent to 0.17 Cº/century. Note how the bright red and bright blue trend-lines are diverging. With every month that passes, the IPCC’s predictions wander further and further from reality.

The lower bound of the orange region on the graph represents the 34 models’ low-end projection of future global warming: 0.4 Cº over 30 years, equivalent to 0.13 Cº/decade or 1.33 Cº/century. The thick, bright red line shows the IPCC’s central projection: 0.7 Cº global warming over 30 years, equivalent to 0.23 Cº/decade or 2.33 Cº/century. The high-end projection of 1.0 Cº global warming over 30 years, equivalent to 0.33 Cº/decade or 3.33 Cº/century, is too far above observation to be worth displaying at all.

The Global Warming Prediction Index
The Global Warming Prediction Index, calculated from the graph, reduces to a single number a direct comparison between the predicted rate of global warming since January 2005 with the measured warming rate. The monthly index number is simply the amount in Celsius degrees by which the IPCC’s most recent central projection of global warming has overshot or undershot the observed temperature trend since January 2005.

The models’ most recent predictions have overshot observed global warming by an impressive 0.22 Cº in less than nine years. That is equivalent to an overshoot of 0.25 Cº/decade or 2.5 Cº/century. The Global Warming Prediction Index is the large “0.22 Cº” in the box at top left on the graph.

The CO2 concentration record
For comparison, the CO2 concentration record, in gray, is from Mauna Loa, Hawaii. The 18 ppmv (198 ppmv/century) rise in the trend on the gray dogtooth CO2 concentration curve, plus other greenhouse-gas increases, should have caused at least 0.1 Cº warming, with the remaining 0.1 Cº from previous CO2 increases, in contrast to the global cooling of 0.01 Cº that has actually been observed since January 2005.

Note that the CO2 trend-line and the observed-temperature trend-line are also diverging at the moment. Not exactly what the models had predicted. 

Look out for the Global Warming Prediction Index here every month
The Gaping Gap graph and the Global Warming Prediction Index will be here at Climate Depot at mid-month every month from now on, as soon as the satellite data for the previous month become available.

Here, for the first time, is the simplest, surest, most straightforward benchmark of the official global warming storyline. One glance tells you all you need to know.
  • If you want graphs of global temperature data for any requested period from any the five principal global-temperature datasets (the HadCRUT4, GISS, and NCDC terrestrial datasets, and the RSS and UAH satellite datasets), or from the mean of any combination of the datasets. Just ask

Bipartisan Senate duo urge end to wind tax credit?

A bipartisan Senate duo is pushing for an end to federal support of the wind energy industry.

On Tuesday, Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) led a group of eight Republican senators in sending a letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), requesting that the committee desert attempts to renew the wind Production Tax Credit (PTC).

The tax credit, given to wind power owners per kilowatt-hour of electricity that they produce, is set to expire at the end of this year.

"The extension gave the wind industry the multi-year certainty that it had requested, so now it is time to let this technology stand on its own," the senators wrote in Tuesday's letter.

The task of extending clean energy tax credits has fallen on the Finance Committee, the letter notes, and the wind tax credit should be "excluded from any legislation the committee may consider."

Baucus's goal has always been to address the wind tax credit and other extenders in the context of tax reform, his office told The Hill on Tuesday. 

But hope for extending the tax credit wane; none of the provisions in the budget deal announced last week included it.

"Congress is struggling to find $63 billion to spend in the budget agreement, when all we have to do is get rid of the wasteful wind production tax credit," Alexander said in a statement.

"Using the wind production tax credit to pay for all or part of the budget agreement would do this country more good than extending this subsidy for expensive, low-quality wind electricity ever could."

The majority Republican letter is the latest in string sent to the Finance Committee.

On Monday, Democrats from both chambers called on the committee to renew clean-energy tax incentives, including the wind production credit.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said in the letter sent by Senate Democrats that the incentives will help consumers save on energy bills and reduce "harmful pollution." 

Update: Senate overules EPA with… some common sense. (stop laughing)

Back in mid November, Junk Science reported on the EPA’s sudden mandate to pretty much block any new fire hydrant installations/repairs due to their hysteria over lead.
Sen. Schumer [D-NY} pushed through a law yesterday exempting the hydrants.

original JS post:

Schumer’s press release:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 18, 2013


Schumer Has Recently Taken Serious Issue with the Federal EPA’s Rules, Released in October, That Apply New Standards for the Amount of Lead That Fire Hydrants Can Contain, Due to the Very Rare Occurrence That They Provide Drinking Water

Schumer Announces that Thanks to Legislation, Which Passed the Senate Last Night, Fire Hydrants Are Permanently Exempt from Reduced-Lead Standards – Otherwise, on January 4, 2014 New York State Municipalities Would Have Been Forced to Purchase A New Stock of Hydrants, Costing $1,200+ Each

Schumer Reveals That in WNY, Municipalities Will Save Over $480K; in Central NY, Over $425K; in the Hudson Valley $400K, in the Capital Region $80K; in the Finger Lakes $400K; in the North Country $42K; in the Southern Tier $60K; Over $450K on Long Island

U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer announced that thanks to just-passed legislation, the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013, municipalities across New York State will no longer be forced to throw out and replace millions of dollars-worth of in stock fire hydrants after January 4, 2014. Specifically, Schumer announced that legislation, which passed the Senate last night by unanimous consent, will permanently exempt fire hydrants from reduced-lead standards and overturn a recent EPA rule to the contrary. The House of Representatives passed a companion bill last week, sponsored by Representative Paul Tonko, and the law will now go to the President’s desk for signature.

Schumer explained that on October 22nd, the EPA released its interpretation of the Reduction of Lead in Drinking Water Act of 2011, and for the first time disclosed that fire hydrants will be subject to new reduced lead standards, due to the very rare occurrence that hydrants provide drinking water. Schumer said that that this sudden mandate by the EPA had taken local water authorities, public safety officials, and hydrant manufacturers by surprise across the country, demonstrated by the tens of thousands of hydrants – at $1,200 or more a piece – that are sitting in their stockyards ready for installation. Schumer also noted that members of Congress did not intend for hydrants to be included in the new reduced-lead drinking water standards when the law was originally written, noting that bath tub and shower parts are not forced to comply.

“The EPA’s sudden mandate to include fire hydrants, which are not a prime source for drinking water, in their reduced-lead standards was a classic case of federal bureaucracy unwisely harming our local communities and their budgets.  Thankfully, common sense prevailed and members from both parties and both houses came together to pass this bill that saves municipalities across New York millions of dollars in costs that would otherwise be flushed away,” said Schumer.  “I thank my colleagues in the Senate and Representative Tonko in the House for advancing this legislation; it was a commonsense measure and the right thing to do, since the costs outweighed any potential safety benefit.  Last night’s passage was a huge win for local governments across New York who can now avoid needless waste, and for average New Yorkers who are now spared potential rate hikes in the New Year.”

Last night, the Senate approved by unanimous consent the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013, which was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this December.  The House bill was introduced by Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY).  Schumer and Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Bob Casey (D-Pa.) and Rob Portman (R-Ohio) had offered a bill identical to the House measure, but used the House bill because it could pass the upper chamber more quickly, which was essential with only a few days left to legislate this year.

Schumer noted that more than just costs were spared, because hydrants must undergo third-party testing to ensure that they meet standards for effectiveness of a hydrant’s fire-fighting capacity.  If the mandate had remained in place, cities and towns might not have been able to secure compliant replacement hydrants in time to meet the new standards.  So if a fire hydrant was damaged after January 4th and needed to be replaced, the municipality may have been unable to do so, due to a lack of compliant hydrants in reserve.  Schumer explained that New Yorkers actually may have been put at risk by the new rule, especially given the increased need for replacement hydrants during the winter months.

Passage of the Community Fire Safety Act of 2013 means that hydrants are permanently exempt from the reduced lead standard and municipalities throughout the state can use their stockpile of fire hydrants, which will save them millions of dollars, prevent rate hikes on water utilities, and will save countless cities, towns and water districts the labor costs and man hours it would have taken to salvage parts and dispense of non-compliant hydrants.  Schumer provided local data on the amount of money municipalities will save thanks to this legislation:

Capital Region:

According to local officials in the Capital Region, at least $80,000 in reserve hydrants and parts can now be used after January 4th:

·           Albany has 5 hydrants in reserve worth approximately $8,000;

·           Colonie has approximately 40 hydrants in reserve, valued at $48,000;

·           Saratoga Springs has 7 hydrants, valued at $10,500;

·           Troy has 7 reserve hydrants, costing $8,400;

·           Schenectady has 2 hydrants in reserve, valued at $2,400, but the city plans to install them this week in order to avoid wasting them once the law takes effect in January.

Western New York:

According to Western New York officials, at least $554,900 in stockpiled hydrants and parts in Western New York can now be used after January 4th:

·         The City of Dunkirk has 3 hydrants in reserve, valued at $3,600;

·         The City of Jamestown has 18 hydrants in reserve, costing $21,600;

·         The City of Niagara Falls Water Department has 33 hydrants in reserve, valued at $1,600 apiece, as well as $50,000 in parts, for a total of $102,800;

·         The City of Lockport Water Department has 12 hydrants in reserve at $1,200 apiece, and $10,000 worth of parts, for a total of $24,400;

·         The City of North Tonawanda has 7 hydrants in reserve at $2,000 apiece, plus $6,000 in parts, for a total of $20,000;

·         The Erie County Water Authority has 73 new replacement hydrants valued at $109,000; 200 incomplete hydrants they use for parts valued at $100,000; and an additional $100,000 in new parts, for a total of $309,000;

·         The City of Olean has 9 spare hydrants - at $1,500 each – plus an addition $30,000 in replacement parts, for a total of $43,500;

·         The City of Salamanca has 5 hydrants - at $2,000 each – plus and additional $20,000 in replacement parts for a total of $30,000.

Rochester-Finger Lakes:

In sum, at least $420,000 in spare hydrants and parts can now be used after January 4th:

·         The City of Rochester now has 100 complete hydrants in stock at a cost of $1,200 each, plus an additional $100,000 worth of hydrant spare parts and brass fittings, for a total of $220,000;

·         Monroe County Water Authority also has an estimated $200,000 worth of spare hydrants and parts now in inventory that can now be used.

Central New York:

In total, at least $425,000 in hydrants and parts can now be used after January 4th:

·         Specifically, Onondaga County now owns and operates 14,000 complete hydrants and has over 200 hydrants in reserve, at a cost of $1,200 each, for a total of $240,000;

·         The City of Syracuse has 5,500 hydrants and keeps parts and spare hydrants in stock, at an estimated cost of $160,000;

·         Oneida County – represented by the Mohawk Valley Water Authority – has 12 hydrants in stock and more in parts, for a total of $25,000 in value.

North Country:

In sum, at least $40,200 in replacement hydrants can now be used after January 4th:

·         According to city officials, Plattsburgh has 18 reserve hydrants and they estimate replacement cost at between $1,800 and $2,000 apiece, or approximately $34,200;

·         Glens Falls has 5 hydrants in reserve at an estimated cost of $6,000.

Southern Tier:

In sum, at least $75,600 in stockpiled hydrants in Binghamton and Ithaca can now be used after January 4th:

·         According to Binghamton officials, the City has 40 hydrants in reserve, at approximately $1,500 apiece. The City estimates that it would cost upwards of $12,000 in labor costs to break down the existing inventory for parts, if they would have been forced to comply with the new interpretation, for a total of $60,000;

·         Ithaca has 13 hydrants in inventory, costing $15,600.

Hudson Valley:

According to local officials in the Cities of Newburgh, Poughkeepsie, Kingston, and Yonkers, at least$411,525 can now be used after January 4th:

·         Newburgh has 8 hydrants in reserve, worth approximately $2,000 apiece, for a total of $16,000;

·         Kingston has an estimated 3 hydrants in reserve, valued at a total of $2,400, and approximately $15,000 in parts, for a total of $22,200;

·         Poughkeepsie has 25 new hydrants in reserve, worth $4,125 apiece, for a total of $103,125;

·         Yonkers has approximately 100 hydrants in reserve – at between $2,500 and $3,000 apiece – for an averaged total cost of $275,000.

New York City:

New York City estimates that it would have had to throw out over 1,300 hydrants and hydrant parts worth over $1 million, and spend even more in taxpayer money to buy new hydrants that comply to EPA standards. In total, the city would have wasted over 1,300 man hours in the process. Now both labor and stockpile costs have been saved thanks to the passage of the legislation.

Long Island:

Suffolk County Water Authority alone estimates they would have had to throw out $450,000 worth of hydrants and hydrant parts, and spend even more in ratepayer money to buy new hydrants that comply to EPA standards.  Nassau County faced a similar situation. It would have taken hundreds of man hours to order and replace the stock already in existence.  Now both labor and stockpile costs have been saved thanks to the passage of the legislation.