When it comes to predicting the impact of EPA rules, we can't trust the utility companies

Seven times either I or the SC Small Business Chamber has intervened in rate hearings for SCE&G and Duke Energy.  Seven times the public was told that these power companies had to have every penny of their rate hike proposal or their world would come to an end.  Seven times their rate increases have been cut by about 50% or more by the SC Public Service Commission.  Seven times SCE&G and Duke continued to rack up big earnings after the rate cases were over.

Just last December we settled with SCE&G for a 1.38%  rate hike compared to the 6.6% it asked for.  This month we settled with Duke which had originally asked for a 15.1% overall electric rate increase (14% for small businesses) but in the end was satisfied with a 8.16% overall rate hike (3.42% for small businesses).

This is the background you need to know when utility companies scream that new EPA rules on limiting carbon pollution from coal plants (which account for 40% of our carbon emissions in this country) will cause rates to skyrocket.  The track record shows that you simply can’t believe them. 

Below is a story today in The Hill in which I make this point.

 

The Hill
September 23, 2013

Emissions regulations are central battle in Obama climate agenda

 

 

By Julian Hattem and Ben Goad

If the Obama administration's proposed limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants become law, they would represent the first major victory for the president on his second-term climate plan. But opponents are not ready to roll over.

 

The Enivronmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal has reignited a bitter fight over the consequence of the proposed regulations on businesses, with coal country and business groups warning that the announcement will be a death knell for the energy resource and have trickle-down effects throughout the economy.

“The facts are plain and simple: coal provides the greatest share of electricity we use,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, Democrat of West Virginia. “If these regulations go into effect, American jobs will be lost, electricity prices will soar and economic uncertainty will grow.”

Together with an upcoming proposal to cap emissions from power plants already in existence, Friday’s proposal from the EPA amounts to the centerpiece of the White House’s second-term climate agenda and a major effort to control releases of the primary greenhouse gas.

Power plants are the largest source of carbon emissions, accounting for about 40 percent of the nation’s discharges, but currently they are allowed to spew the gas without limit.

The proposal on future facilities sets caps for the amount of the greenhouse gas that new coal and natural gas plants will be able to send into the atmosphere. The draft rules also call for new coal plants, which emit more carbon than natural gas-fired facilities, to use a carbon capture and storage technology that opponents believe is too expensive and still not yet proven to work as planned.

Requiring that technology could amount to a de facto ban on new coal facilities, they have worried, and could hurt small companies disproportionately.

“It is clear that small facilities with sparse capital reserves will be the most impacted by stringent [greenhouse gas] standards,” the conservative American Action Forum concluded in a report issued Friday. “Even though they contribute less than one percent of U.S. emissions, small entities will face the same regulatory hurdles that large utilities encounter.”

Other businesses, however, counter that the realities of climate change present far worse threats to portions of the private sector than do the proposed regulations. Along the coast of South Carolina, businesses fear rising sea levels that could decimate the state’s retail and tourism industries, said Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

Knapp rejected claims by industry groups who say the regulations will necessarily raise energy costs for American households.

“The sky is always falling for those guys,” Knapp said. “They simply try to scare the public, and guess what? The next quarter, they’re still making profits – double-digit profits. It’s obscene.”

The White House is comparing its regulatory effort and the opposition it has stirred to Obama’s first-term focus on developing new fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, the second largest source of American carbon emissions.

“We saw a lot of the same naysayers who said that this would be really bad for the auto industry,” Josh Earnest, a White House spokesman, said on Friday. “But over the course of time in which those rules took effect, we have seen the auto industry strengthen significantly in terms of creating jobs and putting forward better products and improving sales and revenue.”

The administration is predicting that requiring the carbon capture technology will lead to new advancements, making it cheaper and easier to employ.

The power plant rules are the administration’s most prominent environmental and safety regulations of Obama’s second term to date, but they are hardly the only ones.

In recent weeks, the administration has issued proposals to certify that the EPA has the authority to regulate streams, estuaries and smaller bodies of water, and to curb cancer-causing dust that can occur at construction sites.

Coming down the pike are final rules limiting pollution from automobiles, upcoming yearly limits for the amount of biofuel that refiners must blend with conventional gasoline and new standards for smog.

Yet time is growing short for the Obama’s second term regulatory agenda, with the clock already ticking on the president’s time in office.

“It’s important to move quickly, both to finish it in this administration and because we need to end the unlimited dumping of carbon pollution from the existing fleet of coal plants, which are the biggest source of carbon pollution in the country,” Dave Hawkins, head of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate program, said.

The EPA has laid out a schedule of deadlines meant to ensure its goals are accomplished. Pollution standards for existing plants, for instance, are due to be proposed next June and finalized the following year.

“To do what is on his agenda is definitely within the realm of the practical,” said Abigail Dillen, vice president of litigation for climate and energy for EarthJustice.

Regulators certainly aren’t wasting any time. As it unveiled the proposal on Friday, the EPA announced that it would begin outreach on the second set of rules, for currently operational plants, which are sure to face greater opposition.

“We’re beginning the discussion, and as we go through that discussion lots of ideas will come forward about sensible and cost-effective ways to reduce carbon from the existing fleet,” an EPA official said.

Critics of the power plant initiative worry about the dynamic it will create, especially for other industries. 

“This rule sets a dangerous precedent that EPA will soon extend to other sectors, including refineries,” Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the chairman of the House Science Committee, said in a statement on Friday. “It is just the latest example of the President’s all-of-the-above rhetoric not matching his administration’s actions.” 

Ross Eisenberg, the vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturing, shared Smith’s concern about other sources of greenhouse gases that the EPA might decide to regulate. “It’s chemicals, it’s natural gas distribution systems, it’s iron and steel, metal manufacturing, food distribution,” Eisenberg said. “We’re expecting the decisions and the precedent that’s being set here, in terms of what they can and can’t mandate, what data they need to set this rule, to matter for those follow-on regulations.”

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/energyenvironment/323785-new-emissions-regulations-are-central-battle-in-obama-climate-agenda#ixzz2fioOWDlx

 

 

Senate video worth watching

Momentum is building in the U.S. Senate for change in the filibuster rules. 

If you remember at the start of the current session Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on significantly changing the filibuster rules.  The Senate has become dysfunctional with nothing really getting done due to the abuse of the present rules that allow the minority to control the Senate.  It is so easy to block any movement on bills and even nominations that the country’s important issues are not being addressed effectively.

This frustration boiled over recently at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that met to consider the nomination of Gina McCarthy for EPA Administrator.  All the Republican members of the Committee boycotted the meeting so that no action could be taken. 

Watch the fireworks for yourself at the link below.  Advance to the 27 minute and 40 second mark when the meeting begins.  It is well worth watching and when you are done call Senator Reid’s office at 1-866-736-7343 and demand the Senate reform its filibuster rules.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=670b95e6-ae45-33e6-edac-c256181b8e10

 

Fracking Seen by EPA as No. 2 Emitter of Greenhouse Gases

Bloomberg News
February 6, 2013

By Mark Drajem

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-02-05/greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-in-u-dot-s-dot-power-plants-on-coal-cuts

Natural gas and oil production is the second-biggest source of U.S. greenhouse gases, the government said, emboldening environmentalists who say tighter measures are needed to curb the emissions from hydraulic fracturing.

In its second-annual accounting of emissions that cause global warming from stationary sources, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time included oil and natural- gas production. Emissions from drilling, including fracking, and leaks from transmission pipes totaled 225 million metric tons of carbon-dioxide equivalents during 2011, second only to power plants, which emitted about 10 times that amount.

Gas and oil production "is an area where we have technological answers to our problems," Michael Levi, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, said in an interview. "We know how to fix many of these problems; we just need to make the decision to do it."

The EPA yesterday released on its website details of emissions from about 8,000 factories, power plants and refineries. Two coal-fired power facilities owned by Atlanta- based Southern Co (SO). topped the list, followed by one owned by Energy Future Holdings Corp (TXU). of Dallas.

In total, power plants emitted 2,221 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2011, down 4.5 percent from 2010, according to the agency. The EPA report showed the benefits of fracking, as it attributed the reduction to cuts in coal use and increased use of gas as fuel by electricity generators. There was also an increased use of power from renewable sources such as solar and wind, the agency said.

Top Emitters

"This report confirms that major carbon reductions from power plants wouldn't be possible without a reliable and affordable supply of domestically produced natural gas," Simon Lomax, research director at Energy in Depth, an industry group, said in an e-mail.

The EPA report on oil and gas looked at emissions from basins, or large production areas, not individual wells. Among the top emitters were ConocoPhillips (COP)' operations in the San Juan basin in New Mexico, and Apache Corp (APA).'s operations in the Permian basin in Texas. Both companies are based in Houston.

"ConocoPhillips continues to seek out ways to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions," Daren Beaudo, a spokesman for the company said in an e-mail. The company is working to cut methane venting with gas conservation and waste-heat recovery, he said.

Apache has been growing rapidly in the Permian basin, where it's now the second-largest producer, Bill Mintz, a spokesman for the company, said in an interview. "We have done some infrastructure projects that improved our emissions performance in 2012."

Proposed Regulations

The EPA has already proposed regulations to curb emissions from new power plants, setting a standard that would preclude the construction of new coal-fired facilities that don't capture and sink underground the carbon coming from their smokestacks. Once those rules are finished in the coming weeks, the EPA must move to establish similar rules for existing power plants.

Environmental groups have asked the agency to establish standards to prevent methane leakages from the drilling, fracking and transport of oil and gas. The boom in that production in states such as Pennsylvania and North Dakota means that those rules are necessary, according to environmental groups.

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide, but it's more efficient at trapping radiation, making its short-term impact 20-times greater than carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.

"Reducing fugitive methane emissions is a top priority because they are so powerful" a force for global warming, said Mark Brownstein, managing director of the Environmental Defense Fund in New York. "You want to make sure the goose is laying what approximates golden eggs."

To contact the reporter on this story: Mark Drajem in Washington at mdrajem@bloomberg.net

 

My adventure with Mick and little Billy

A “cancerous worm”?  That is what an infamous blogger called me back on June 27th, the day I testified before the U.S. House Small Business Committee.

Will Folks, or little "Billy" as they called him in the many high schools he attended, has the most well-read blog in South Carolina, FitsNews.com.  But the former spokesman for the disgraced South Carolina "hiking the Appalachian Trail" Mark Sanford achieves his acclaim not because of persuasive public policy commentary or insightful political analysis but rather due to his eagerness to wittily degrade others often based on half-truths or no truth at all.

Get on little Billy's bad side and he's relentless.  But FitsNews is not just about personal vendettas.  It is well-understood that little Billy is a paid hit man for his clients. But his skewering of his targets with embarrassing interpretations of current events or the occasional scoops always makes for good political entertainment.

So why the "cancerous worm" characterization?

A little history might be helpful.  The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and Governor Sanford rather quickly became adversaries on numerous issues in his first term.  Mr. Sanford talked a good small-business game but his administration, including little Billy (whose prior work experience was playing in a local band), was really only interested in talk.

When little Billy left the Sanford administration he, of course, parlayed his insider status into a public relations career and the launching of FitsNews.com.  But the notoriously personality-challenged entrepreneur raised his misogynous profile by pleading guilty to physically abusing his then lobbyist girlfriend.  Needless to say that when I subsequently contracted with his ex for lobbying services and little Billy was court-ordered to refrain from writing about her or the Small Business Chamber as her employer, his resentment of me and my organization was forever set in stone.

But "cancerous worm"? 

In the analogy he applauds Representative Mick Mulvaney for "pinning" me to the table and "dissecting" me following my testimony (I guess to expose my cancerous innards).  A little history here is relevant. 

I was good friends with Congressman John Spratt, one of South Carolina’s most respected, dedicated and effective public servant the state has produced but who was defeated by Mr. Mulvaney in 2010.  I had been honored to have Mr. Spratt on my radio show as a regular guest up until that time.  But even before that, Mr. Mulvaney and the Small Business Chamber had locked horns on a state procurement code bill that was intended to help our small businesses receive more of our taxpayer contract dollars.  Mr. Mulvaney singlehandedly stopped the legislation in 2008 but failed to do so in 2009—a fact that I informed his would-be constituents of before the 2010 election in an opinion editorial.

So it is understandable that little Billy and Mr. Mulvaney would look for every opportunity to attack me and the Small Business Chamber.  However, this time in his enthusiasm to ridicule, little Billy exposed more than his paid-for man-crush on Mr. Mulvaney (he calls him a "rock star").  Very quickly after the completion of the hearing in which Mr. Mulvaney read from prepared questions (not about the issue but about my and the Small Business Chamber’s small business integrity), FitsNews had the blog posted along with a YouTube link to just the 9-minute "testy exchange" between Mr. Mulvaney and me--something only a well scripted plan between FitsNews and Mr. Mulvaney's office could have achieved.  

And characteristically little Billy spins the event misleadingly so he can score his points.  He alleges that I was invited to testify by the minority for the purpose of encouraging more funding for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).   He then goes on to repeat anti-regulation talking points about the agency.

The truth is that I only knew that I would be testifying two days earlier and had not been directly contacted by Democrats on the Committee or the EPA and certainly was not told what to say.  The hearing was on the EPA’s compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in regard to small businesses.  The RFA requires federal agencies to review proposed regulations to determine if they will be unnecessarily harmful to small businesses.  I qualified to discuss the issue both because of the Small Business Chamber and our experience with a RFA in South Carolina which we helped to pass.   

No one, including me, knew what my testimony would be until the day before the hearing.  But after reading the testimony of the other presenters, it was clear to me that the problems described in their prepared testimony were most likely due to the lack of resources of the EPA to carry out the RFA mandate properly.  Even the U.S. Chamber presenter expressed a need for more resources for the EPA’s efforts to comply with the RFA’s rulemaking process.

Had little Billy read my entire testimony and how I reached my conclusions….oh but that would mean that he actually cared about facts and finding solutions to problems. 

You can read here my written testimony that due to a five minute time limit I was unable to fully give orally to the Committee.

You can also watch my testimony and all the questions asked of me by every Committee member including Mr. Mulvaney.  Let me know if I look like a “cancerous worm.”

SC Small Business Chamber President to Testify in Washington Today

Frank Knapp, Jr., president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce will testify in Washington, DC at the House Committee for Small Business today at 1 p.m. The hearing is entitled,  Regulatory Flexibility Act Compliance: Is EPA Failing Small Business?

Mr. Knapp will be representing both the SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce and the American Sustainable Business Council of which he is vice chair.

The hearing will examine whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is complying with the Regulatory Flexibility (RFA). The RFA requires federal agencies to assess the economic impact of their regulations on small businesses, small non-profits, and small governmental jurisdictions and if the impact is significant consider alternatives that are less burdensome. The Committee will focus on specific RFA compliance issues in the context of several EPA regulations.

Also testifying are:

¨ Keith W. Holman, Legal and Policy Counsel, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Environment, Technology and Regulatory Affairs Division, Washington, DC

¨ Jeff Brediger, Director of Utilities, Orrville Utilities, Orrville, OH

Testifying on behalf of the American Public Power Association

¨ David Merrick, President, Merrick Design and Build Inc, Kensington, MD

Testifying on behalf of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry

Below are the prepared comments of Mr. Knapp for this hearing:

Chairman Graves, Ranking Member Velasquez, and members of the Committee, I am Frank Knapp, Jr., president, CEO and co-founder of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and Vice Chair of the American Sustainable Business Council.  Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today.

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber is a statewide advocacy organization of 5000 plus members that promotes a more small-business friendly state and federal government.  

The American Sustainable Business Council founded in 2009 and its members now represent over 150,000 businesses and more than 300,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals across the country. These diverse business organizations cover the gamut of local and state chambers of commerce, microenterprise, social enterprise, green and sustainable business groups, local living economy groups, women business leaders, economic development organizations and investor and business incubators.

I had the opportunity to read the testimony of Mr. Holman, representing the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Merrick, representing the National Association of the Remodeling Industry, prior to preparing my comments.  I commend them for the civility of their remarks and their focus on the Regulatory Flexibility Act as it pertains to the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Both gentlemen recognized the importance of the Regulatory Flexibility Act for insuring that regulations are reviewed to determine if they are too burdensome for small businesses and if the goal of regulations can be achieved in alternative methods.  They pointed out some instances where the business community and the EPA didn’t agree.  But they also point out successful RFA stories. 

In 2004 my South Carolina organization worked with our South Carolina Chamber and NFIB to pass our Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Act modeled after the federal law.  Last August the then chairman of the South Carolina Small Business Regulatory Review Committee told me that over the previous seven years his committee had reviewed about 300 proposed regulations and identified only ten that raised their concern.  His Committee worked with the state agency promulgating these new regulations and satisfactorily resolved the issues.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act has created an effective process to protect small businesses even if the process itself needs some attention from time to time. 

Mr. Holman correctly identifies one area where the EPA’s compliance with the RFA can be improved—more resources for the rulemaking process.   While there are voices we hear in Washington critical of the EPA and calls for cutting back or freezing the regulatory process, the reality is that it can work better for small businesses and the public if the EPA was better funded.

With more resources the EPA can do a better job of meeting the requirements of the RFA to the benefit of small business.  However more resources for the EPA would not only allow the agency to be more efficient and effective in complying with the RFA, it would also enable the organization to do a better job of protecting the public’s and environment’s health while unleashing entrepreneurial innovations and creating jobs.

Every responsible new rule that protects the health of our citizens and workers opens a door to newer and better products.  Our nation is loaded with these small business entrepreneurs just waiting to solve a problem when the demand is created. 

The Toxic Substance Control Act is so outdated and the EPA’s resources so strained that there are literally over 80,000 chemicals in the agency’s inventory but  it has been able to require testing for only about 200.  Just yesterday the state of California took the lead on investigating the health hazards of toxic flame retardant chemicals used in furniture and mattresses while not providing protection from fires.  The EPA should be examining this national health hazard but it doesn’t have the resources. 

Can the materials we sleep and sit on be non-toxic and still resist fire?  Absolutely.  Ask Barry Cik, owner of Naturepedic in Cleveland, Ohio.  Naturepedic manufactures baby and crib mattresses that provide proper support, meet government flammability requirements, provide waterproofing, seamless designs and other hygienic features all without the use of harmful chemicals or allergenic materials.  But instead of helping this innovative industry take off and making bedding healthier for families, we protect the use of carcinogenic chemicals of the past by not properly empowering the EPA with the needed legislative support and resources.

Then there is Bioamber, a bio-based chemical manufacturer. The renewable chemical industry with all its new jobs is on the launch pad.  But while it is developing technology and struggling to be profitable, it is laboring in the shadow of the old guard chemical giants churning out chemicals that avoid the inspection of an under-resourced EPA.  Reforming the Toxic Substance Control Act to produce stronger and clearer regulations on hazardous chemicals will result in hundreds of new Bioambers to grow a sustainable economy.

The public and small business owners want good regulations.  A recent national poll of small business owners conducted for the American Sustainable Business Council found that 80 percent support disclosure and regulations of toxic materials, 79 percent support ensuring clean air and water and 61 percent support moving the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.

It is in this area that support for the EPA is vital not only to protect our health from toxic emissions and the high costs to our economy that results, but also to protect our existing small businesses from the negative effects of carbon emissions resulting in rising sea levels and more severe weather events, a very crucial issue for all and certainly our coastal areas in South Carolina.  Effective EPA regulations will drive a new energy economy that will create millions of new jobs, reduce energy costs and make our country truly energy independent.   That is the kind of economic impact that a properly supported and resourced EPA can have that will benefit all small businesses, not just the ones impacted by the RFA. 

Here is the question asked in the title of this hearing—“Is EPA Failing Small Businesses?”  The EPA’s compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act isn’t failing small businesses but it could do a better job of working with small businesses if, as Mr. Holman points out, it had more resources. 

Now is the moment to support the EPA to enable it to really live up to its potential to help our small businesses and our economy in promulgating fair and transparent regulations on toxic chemicals and air and water pollution.  In the same poll I mentioned above it found that 86 percent of small businesses see regulations as a necessary part of a modern market-based economy. The American Sustainable Business Council believes that we don’t have to choose between regulations to protect our health and environment and creating jobs to grow our economy. That is the old way of doing business. 

Our future prosperity is clearly tied to developing a sustainable economy through business innovation.  Businesses can take care of our people and environment and make a profit all at the same time.  And a properly supported and resourced EPA can help us get to this sustainable economy faster.

###

A Time for Bold Action to Build a Sustainable Economy

The Huffington Post   
6/24/2012

By Lisa P. Jackson--chief administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
      David Levine--co-founder and CEO of the American Sustainable Business Council

For many years, we have been told that we have to choose between growing the economy and protecting the environment -- especially as we worked to recover from the sharp downturn of 2008. But this old way of thinking has been turned on its head in the 21st century, when our prosperity is clearly linked to environmental health and green innovation. Government entities like the EPA and industry leaders like the American Sustainable Business Council are showing that clean air, a safe water supply, and healthy places to live are key ingredients to economic growth. Today -- and in the years to come -- our economy is going to grow precisely because we are taking care of our environment, and the leading job creators are going to be companies that specialize in sustainability and the green economy.

This is a time for economic growth that taps the unmatched capacity for innovation and ingenuity in American businesses, and mobilizes entrepreneurs to foster an economy that's built to last. The 2012 State of Green Business Report found that "environmental sustainability efforts continue to grow," thanks to companies that are utilizing smart, cutting-edge business practices that benefit people and the planet, all while making a healthy profit.

The American Sustainable Business Council and its members now represent over 150,000 businesses across the country. They and many other businesses in all sectors are integrating energy efficiency, emissions reductions, safer chemicals, water conservation and other sustainability measures into their business decisions. Each day, we see more exciting new technologies that make cleaner, safer and more affordable products for consumers, while boosting profits for businesses, and attracting increasing interest from investors with $3.3 trillion privately invested worldwide since 2007.

Building a sustainable economy can also put U.S. businesses at the forefront of a growing, global market. By conservative estimates, in 2010 U.S. environmental technology firms generated $312 billion in revenue and supported 1.7 million American jobs -- including 61,000 small businesses. Worldwide, environmental technology is an $800 billion industry. And in the coming years, experts foresee significant 7 percent growth as developing countries begin to more seriously address environmental and social concerns for the long term.

To seize those opportunities, we will be highlighting American ingenuity, innovation and industry at Rio+20 in Brazil this week. The federal government and private sector sustainability leaders are connecting experts -- from business, finance, education, health and more -- with people and organizations eager to build cleaner and greener world economies.

The EPA and our federal government representatives will be working with international and private sector partners to help catalyze local investments in sustainable development. By sharing our expertise and building partnerships, we can make progress on everything from clean water to deforestation to greenhouse gas reduction.

At the same time, American businesses at Rio+20 are seeking opportunities to reach new markets around the world, and ways to sell products that will increase efficiency, save money, and promote economic growth at home and abroad. We have an opportunity to make our technology and products part of sustainable solutions all over the world.

Developing a green economy will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, make our communities healthier, and ensure that our Main Street businesses are more resilient. An economy that not only manages negative social and environmental impacts but encourages "triple bottom line" results -- for people, the planet and profits -- is an economy that's poised to succeed. We will reduce the risks of costly health problems like asthma, cancer and learning disabilities. Healthy, vibrant communities will attract new homebuyers and tourists. And innovative American companies will continue to bring solutions to consumers around the world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-p-jackson/sustainable-economy_b_1622219.html

Support clean energy

Take action today by clicking here.

All recent surveys of small business owners have shown that they support the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Carbon Pollution Rules for new power plants that will help propel our country into the renewable, clean energy economy. These rules will also reduce carbon pollution which is driving climate change resulting in rising sea levels and more severe weather events that threaten our small business tourism economy.

Unfortunately, defenders of the coal industry are attacking the proposed EPA rules with false scare tactics of increased costs for electricity.  Here in South Carolina we are not building new coal power plants and instead our increased electricity costs are due to the two new nuclear plants being built in Fairfield County

It is clear that small businesses need to stand up and support the EPA’s proposed Carbon Pollution rules.  Please send a letter in support of the EPA’s proposal during the comment period that ends June 25^th.

Take action today by clicking here.

Two small business polls you should read

What do the small business owners in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada and Colorado have in common with those across the country?  On political demographics and opinions on some important issues apparently a lot.

Earlier this year a national survey of small business owners commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority found that 50% of the business owners identified as Republican or independents leaning Republican, 32% as Democrat or independents leaning Democratic and 15% as independents (not leaning toward either party).

A Small Business Majority poll released this week of small business owners in the 6 states mentioned above found that 44% identified as Republican, 38% as Democrat, and 10% as independent. 

Small business owners in both polls found high support for the federal government’s efforts to protect the environment.

In the national poll 61% supported moving the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy and 79% supported ensuring clean air and water.  The states’ poll “found that 71% of small business owners agree government has a role in driving our country toward a cleaner, more competitive economy” and 76% favored “the EPA’s federal rule that new power plants reduce previously unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.”  The states’ poll also found a majority of small business owners (58%) supporting the government investing in renewable energy “despite the failure of Solyndra.”

The two polls also found similar results relating to the continued off-base criticism in Washington that regulations are a primary concern of small businesses.  In both polls, small business owners ranked regulations way down on their list of problems—4^th in the national poll and 5^th in the states’ poll.

A sign that the economy is improving at a good pace can be found in the responses to both poll’s question of what is the biggest problem facing small businesses. 

The national poll conducted primarily in December of this past year found that the number one problem for small business owners at 34% was weak customer demand.  But in the states’ poll conducted just last month lack of customer demand came in 3^rd as the top problems at only 24%. 

Now that’s great news.

Time for the power sector to get to work

The Hill's Congress Blog 
December 22, 2011

By John Arensmeyer, Small Business Majority, and Mindy Lubber, Ceres 

 

The word on the street is the recession is behind us, but times are still tough. The economy is stagnant and businesses of all sizes are still trying to weather the economic storm that forced many to close their doors and left countless workers unemployed. 

For these reasons, every other word out of politicians’ mouths is “jobs,” and how we can protect them and create more. Unfortunately, the rhetoric has reached a fever pitch and “job killing” labels are put on everything from tax cuts to sensible standards that protect our communities and us.

This has happened with new standards announced Dec. 21 that would protect Americans from breathing mercury, lead, arsenic, and acid gases from outdated power plants. Twenty years in the making, these new standards are finally moving into the implementation phase, though there will likely be pushback from some claiming they’ll stifle job growth. That opposition is misguided. In fact, the new rules will create jobs and are supported by Americans and business owners—also known as job creators—across the political spectrum.

A recent Small Business Majority poll found that small business owners’ greatest concern is economic uncertainty about the future, with 46 percent citing it as their top worry. Only 13 percent of small business owners said government regulation is their biggest concern.

If we are to tackle what is really worrying small business owners—economic uncertainty—we should encourage actions that spur economic growth. Allowing the Environmental Protection Agency the ability to regulate harmful emissions such as toxics from power plants is something small business owners believe will do just that.

Small Business Majority’s national poll found 76 percent of small employers support the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries and other major emitters. Adding to that is a recent poll by Ceres—a coalition of businesses, investors, and public-interest groups—that found 77 percent of Americans specifically support the newly announced limits on lead, mercury and other toxic emissions that are being released from power plants.

Those standards—known as the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards—will require power companies to clean up or close their dirtiest, oldest plants, including many built more than half a century ago.

The nation’s utilities will still earn an appropriate return on their investments. Meanwhile, the EPA estimates that new rules will pay back $5 to $13 in health benefits for every dollar power companies spend in complying, so broader communities will benefit, as well.

What’s more, a recent report by the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts found the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard is part of a suite of clean-air standards that will create 1.4 million new jobs over the next five years. These include professional positions, construction and manufacturing jobs, for both large and small companies, from the suppliers’ manufacturing centers all the way to the actual construction sites.

For example, retrofitting a coal-fired power plant with $200 million worth of air pollution control equipment would result in 2,200 jobs, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics. Many of those jobs go to local companies, who supply the concrete services, the excavation and demolition work, or the cranes and trucks. These benefits ripple further through local economies when workers spend their wages.

It’s time that power companies do their part. Other major contributors to mercury-air pollution—including medical and municipal incinerators—have already reduced their emissions, cutting mercury by 95 percent since 1990. And steel and cement makers have also made great strides.

America and its job creators are behind the new power plant rules, and the EPA has acted. Now it’s time to get to work.

Arensmeyer is the founder and CEO of Small Business Majority, an advocacy group founded and run by small business owners. Lubber is President of Ceres, a coalition of investors, public interest groups, businesses, and environmental groups working on sustainability challenges.

POLL: Small Businesses Support Strong National Standards to Increase Energy Innovation, Prosperity for Small Firms

Small Business Majority: Small business owners don’t believe the anti-regulatory hype

Washington, D.C. – Small business owners support strong national standards to increase energy innovation, according to a new national opinion poll of 1,200 small business owners released today by Small Business Majority. The poll, conducted by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, found that 87 percent of small business owners agree that “improving innovation and energy efficiency are good ways to increase prosperity for small businesses.” It also found strong support for higher mileage standards for passenger vehicles and the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, refineries and other major emitters.

“Small businesses understand that to survive in this tough economy they need to innovate, and that strong energy efficiency standards will assist them in doing so by helping them save money in their own business and creating new market opportunities,” said John Arensmeyer, founder and CEO of Small Business Majority. “Right now, helping small businesses grow and put Americans back to work should be the number one priority.”

When asked about the biggest challenges facing their small businesses, only 13 percent identified “government regulations” as their top concern. Instead, 43 percent of business owners said the rising costs of doing business—including the cost of fuel, electricity, heating and cooling costs—was a top concern and 46 percent cited uncertainty about the economy.

"Small businesses owners get that stronger standards translates into more jobs and a boost to our struggling economy: a win-win for everyone. As the former chairman of the small business committee, I know that small businesses are the drivers of our economy, and we'd be wise to listen to our primary job creators," said Senator John Kerry.

Small business owners also overwhelmingly support EPA regulation of carbon emissions. By a 3:1 margin, small business owners across the nation support the EPA regulating carbon emissions that cause climate change.

Support is also high in states with large manufacturing sectors like Michigan (73 percent) and Ohio (75 percent) of small business owner’s supportive of the EPA regulating carbon emissions. The supportive trend continued in other oversampled states of California (71 percent) and Minnesota (73 percent).

“EPA regulation of carbon emissions would directly affect my business by encouraging investments in renewable energy,” said Stefanie Penn Spear, president of Expedite Renewable Energy in Chagrin Falls, Ohio. “In addition, the economic uncertainty small business owners experience today would decline, since regulation of carbon emissions would stabilize the market place, and entrepreneurs would have concrete goals for the future and begin to innovate accordingly.”

On the issue of passenger vehicle fuel efficiency, Small Business Majority finds that 87 percent of small business owners overwhelmingly support adopting strong standards now, and 80 percent support requiring the auto industry to increase mileage to 60 mpg by 2025.

In July, President Obama announced an agreement with automakers to adopt a federal 54.5 mpg standards by the year 2025. “Higher fuel standards would allow me to expand my business immediately and they would boost my employees’ spending power as consumers,” said Jonathan Tobias, owner of Michigan Green Cabs in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “In my industry, employees pay fuel prices for the vehicles I supply. If I could give drivers 60 mpg cars, they'd be lining up to work for me since they'd net more pay than they would elsewhere.”

Small business owners say stronger gas mileage standards will help American automakers innovate, improve efficiency and compete in the global economy; 73 percent of poll respondents believe the federal government should do more to make American car companies innovate and 71 percent believe American car companies do not innovate enough.

Other findings from the poll include:

Small business owners recognize the value of energy efficiency, clean energy and cutting waste.

• 68 percent of small business owners have installed energy-saving measures such as energy efficient light bulbs, appliances, windows and insulation.
• 78 percent recycle.
• 12 percent have bought hybrid, electric, or alternative fuel vehicles.

http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/energy/index_national.php

EPA authority support

Yesterday The South Carolina Small Business Chamber signed on to the below statement.  For more background on our postion on this issue, click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senate Amendments to SBIR-STTR Blocking EPA’s Authority: Political Maneuvers that Will Do Nothing for Small Businesses

Washington, DC - March 16, 2011 -- We, the undersigned organizations representing a diverse set
of business interests that range in size from fortune 500 companies to the small businesses that make up the backbone of this country, stand united in opposition to legislative attempts to undermine the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA). The bipartisan CAA has a long standing history of protecting public health and the environment since being signed into law in 1970 and most recently amended in 1990 with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the last two decades, emissions of the most common air pollutants have declined by 41%, while Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has increased by more than 64%. Unfortunately, two proposed amendments unrelated to S. 493, the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and the Small Business Technical Transfer (STTR) Reauthorization Act of 2011 (SBIR/STTR Reauthorization), would block the EPA’s authority to enforce provisions of the CAA. Congress created SBIR in 1982 and STTR in 1992 to stimulate technological innovation and commercialize new products that led to the creation of jobs such as those in domestic manufacturing. The SBIR/STTR Reauthorization represents the first long-term reauthorization since 2000 and would provide certainty to these critical programs if enacted into law.

However, some in Congress want to jeopardize the reauthorization of these programs by playing politics with the environment and forcing a debate around EPA’s regulatory authority. Specifically, the following proposed amendments to the SBIR/STRR Reauthorization would roll back the EPA’s ability to protect public and workforce health from dangerous emissions of carbon and other greenhouse gases (GHG):

The McConnell (R-KY) Amendment, would overrule public health experts and scientists by indefinitely taking away EPA’s ability to regulate these emissions from polluting industries. We urge legislators to OPPOSE this amendment.

The Rockefeller (D-WV) Amendment would also overrule public health experts and scientists by temporarily taking away EPA’s ability to regulate these emissions from polluting industries. Such a delay only creates further business uncertainty for forward looking businesses such as those we represent; therefore we urge legislators to OPPOSE this amendment.

These amendments won't help small businesses and won’t create jobs. In fact, they'll leave small businesses – through factors such as higher employee health costs and productivity loss – to pay the price for dirtier air and will directly put jobs at risk. Over the past 40 years, the CAA has helped our economy create millions of new jobs and is one of the primary reasons for the dramatic growth of the U.S. environmental technologies industry and its workforce. Moreover, our research shows that the benefits of the CAA are wide reaching, and a diverse array of small businesses are eagerly looking to participate in a growing sustainable economy to boost their bottom lines. Given the negative impact on small business and environmental technology jobs that these amendments are bound to have, it is highly ironic that they would be attached to the reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR — programs that have been a key component of small business success. We urge the Senate to reject these amendments should they come up for a vote, and, instead, get back to providing support for programs like the SBIR that affect small businesses the most. Passage of either of these amendments creates a slippery slope towards undoing or delaying other critical protections under the CAA.

American Businesses for Clean Energy
American Sustainable Business Council
Main Street Alliance
Small Business Majority
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce

About the Groups

American Businesses for Clean Energy (ABCE) is an initiative to demonstrate large and small business  support for EPA's clean air rules and Congressional enactment of clean energy and climate legislation.
http://www.americanbusinessesforcleanenergy.org/

The American Sustainable Business Council is a growing coalition of business networks and  businesses committed to advancing a new vision, framework and policies that support a vibrant,  equitable and sustainable economy. The Council brings together the business perspective, political  will and strength to stimulate our economy, benefit our communities, and preserve our environment.  Today, the organizations that have joined in this partnership represent over 65,000 businesses and social enterprises and more than 150,000 entrepreneurs, owners, executives, investors and business professionals and other individuals. http://www.asbcouncil.org/

The Main Street Alliance is a national network of state-based small business coalitions. The Alliance creates opportunities for small business owners to speak for ourselves, advancing public policies that are good for our businesses, our employees, and the communities we serve. http://www.mainstreetalliance.org/

Small Business Majority is a national nonprofit organization focused on solving the biggest problems  facing America’s 28 million small businesses. We conduct extensive opinion and economic research and  work with small business owners, policy experts and elected officials nationwide to bring nonpartisan  small business voices to the public policy table. http://www.smallbusinessmajority.org/

The South Caroline Small Business Chamber of Commerce is a statewide, 5,000+ member advocacy organization working to make state government more small business friendly. http://www.scsbc.org/

More than just an election this week

I was a little pre-occupied this week so I’m late with this blog.
A little thing like an election sucked some energy out of me as it did most folks. But I was involved with some positive activities.

My declaration expressing support for the Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas was filed along with similar support messages from 38 other state agencies, conservation groups and business organizations, such as Small Business Majority and Mainstreet Alliance.

I, Frank Knapp, Jr., co-founder, president and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, make this Declaration in support of the response filed by the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and other environmental intervenors in opposition to motions filed by various parties to stay various actions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relating to the control of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act. The purpose of this Declaration is to express The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce’s support for EPA’s decisions to move forward with controls on emissions of GHGs under the Act and to oppose motions to stay EPA actions in order to further delay implementation of the Act as to GHG emissions. Read more…

I also submitted a letter to the Internal Revenue Service in support of a citizen’s complaint against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

On behalf of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to urge you to take prompt action on the letter filed on October 18, 2010 by U.S. Chamber Watch, the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, and Corporate Ethics International. The letter describes a series of troubling transactions between the Starr Foundation, National Chamber Foundation (NCF), and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and raises serious questions about whether these organizations knowingly structured their dealings to facilitate the covert use of charitable funds for significant non-charitable purposes – including electioneering by the U.S. Chamber and the payment of excessive compensation to its CEO, Tom Donohue – in violation of the federal tax rules. Read more…

It was a busy week.