Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (50860)	5/7/2014 3:41:45 PM
From: FJB	Respond to of 86356

FERC's Prosecutorial Tactics Cato-at-liberty by Tim LynchJoseph Rago of the Wall Street Journal reports on an outrageous enforcement action by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against brothers, Rich and Kevin Gates. Excerpt: [FERC] began demanding information and taking depositions in fall 2010. At first, the Gates brothers tried to adhere to the insider playbook and hired an attorney from White & Case, a D.C.-based law firm that does frequent business in front of FERC. The insular Washington energy bar trafficks in political connections, but those aren’t so useful for clients who maintain their innocence. Things started to turn for Kevin Gates, he recalls, during his second full-day deposition with the lead FERC enforcement lawyers on the Powhatan matter, Steven Tabackman and Thomas Olson. “I would suggest that it was intimidation tactics, aggressive behavior, which I guess is natural for a federal prosecutor, maybe what you would expect,” he says. “But there were also a lot of questions asked and behavior that suggested to me that we were seeing the world very differently and—I would suggest—they didn’t know what they were talking about.” Mr. Gates was asked to leave the room and sat in the hallway while his lawyer conferred with the feds. The lawyer emerged to relate what the FERC enforcement team had proposed: “Kevin’s a businessman, isn’t he? He knows that it’s cheaper to settle than it is to fight this investigation.” Right then, Mr. Gates says, “I realized that we had a big problem on our hands. This was unlike anything we’d ever seen before at a regulatory agency.” The Gates brothers fired the white-shoe practice and brought on Bill McSwain of Drinker Biddle, a Philadelphia-area lawyer who “didn’t interface much with FERC. He also used to be a Marine sniper, so he had a different approach to the world.” Mr. McSwain introduced himself to FERC by calling their conduct contrary to “established law, as well as common sense,” and that was one of his subtler letters… [FERC’s regulators] have specialized in retroactive punishments for conduct that was legal at the time. Most of these cases never go to court and end with settlements against politically disfavored defendants like J.P. Morgan (that one, like Powhatan, was led by Mr. Olson). Most companies roll over because their future business interests depend on preserving good regulatory graces and favorable FERC rulings. The Gates brothers are unusual in that their livelihoods are elsewhere, but the illogic, intimidation tactics and erosion of due process in their investigation are typical. [Emphasis added]. Read the whole thing. As the article notes, most business people surrender to the bullying tactics of regulators. By taking their case public and fighting back, the Gates brothers may not only win their case, but might establish some favorable legal precedents that will help others in the future. And for that, they deserve our thanks. For related Cato work on the erosion of due process, go here, here, here, and here.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (50860)	5/7/2014 7:25:53 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

Pentagon Paid $150 Per Gallon for 'Green' Jet Fuel... Inhofe blasts Obama for 'global-warming alarmism'...

To: Brumar89 who wrote (50860)	5/7/2014 9:24:33 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86356

Harry Reid has literally lost his mind. Must watch and highly disturbing video. Somebody should help him... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Reid Sinks Deeper Into the Abyss VIDEO Harry Reid’s obsession with the Koch brothers has made him a figure of fun, but frankly, it has gotten past the point where anyone is laughing. After Reid’s foray onto the Senate floor today, his family, friends and colleagues should be concerned about his mental health. This clip is only 30 seconds long, but it speaks volumes about Reid’s state of mind: “Pollution” isn’t causing global warming, the Koch brothers are not the “two richest people in the world,” and the idea that the brothers are somehow one of the “main causes” of climate change is delusional, even if you buy into the anthropogenic global warming theory. The U.S. is not the main emitter of CO2–China is–and within the U.S., Koch Industries is far down the list of CO2 emitters. Koch doesn’t do any coal mining or oil extraction, to my knowledge, and it doesn’t own power plants. No doubt refineries emit some CO2, as do all manufacturing operations, but Koch Industries is not one of the major emitters in the United States, let alone the world. You know who would be far higher on the list? The Democrats’ number one donor, Tom Steyer. As we wrote here, the billionaire hedge fund manager has invested an estimated $1 billion to $2 billion in developing and expanding coal mines and coal-fired power plants in Asia and Australia. If you buy the anthropogenic global warming theory (I don’t), Steyer has a lot more to do with heating the planet than the Koch brothers. But applying logic to anything that comes out of Harry Reid’s mouth is more or less pointless. The man needs help, not deconstruction.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (50860)	5/7/2014 11:12:34 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 86356

Action Alert: EPA Water Rule 2014 Description: Description: ih.constantcontact.com Is a farm pond "navigable?" What about a ditch? If EPA finalizes its new expansive Water Rule, virtually every area that gets wet or has flow during rainfall could be regulated. On February 21, 2014, the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers released their long-awaited proposed rule to expand the Clean Water Act. AFBF has carefully analyzed the proposal. Simply put, EPA and the Corps are now attempting to regulate virtually all water, something Congress has explicitly chosen not to allow and which two U.S. Supreme Court decisions have rejected. For example, normal farming and conservation activities, such as fencing, brush management and pruning shrubs and trees, were exempted by Congress and have never required permits under the Clean Water Act. EPA and the Corps would now require farmers and ranchers to meet otherwise voluntary Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards for these everyday normal farming activities and voluntary conservation practices, or else face Clean Water Act liability. By linking the normal farming exemptions to NRCS standards, the rule would make voluntary conservation standards subject to EPA enforcement. This is unacceptable! AFBF President Bob Stallman recently said, "The American Farm Bureau Federation will dedicate itself to opposing this attempted end run around the limits set by Congress and the Supreme Court." Read the full statement by clicking here. Click here to read other stories on the EPA's Water Rule: * New York Times article on farmers' concerns about the proposed rule * Fox News story What can you do to help? Send a message to EPA and the Corps by the July 21, 2014 deadline. Guide to Writing Your Comments: A sample letter has been prepared below with a required beginning and ending. We ask that you add details around your personal situation - where is your farm or ranch generally located (County/State), what do you raise and how long have you and your family been there? Identical comments are not as influential as personalized letters, so your comments will have more effect if you can add details of the impact the proposed rule will have on your farm or ranch. Here are some important suggestions for your consideration. Please note that you do not have to include all of these points in your letter. * Talk specifically about some of the features of your farm-ditches, drainage ways, tilled fields and grassed waterways -that will likely be considered Waters of the U.S. under EPA's proposed rule. Your Key Message should be: The proposed rule significantly expands the scope of "navigable waters" subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. As I read the proposal it would allow the federal government to regulate most ditches, small and remote "waters" and ephemeral (seasonal) drains where water flows only when it rains. Many of these areas are not even wet most of the time and look more like land than like "waters." * Express your concerns about how your farm or ranch may be affected if the EPA is allowed to claim jurisdiction over ditches and washes on your land. Clean Water Act jurisdiction could result in severe restrictions on your farming or ranching-or even prohibit farming or ranching activities in or near ditches, washes or isolated "wetlands"-no matter the cost or the practical impact on you, your family and your farm or ranch. Your Key Message here should be: Because of the proposed rule, farmers, ranchers and other landowners will face roadblocks to ordinary land-use activities-like fencing, spraying for weeds or insects, discing or even pulling weeds. The need to establish buffer zones around grassed waterways, ephemeral washes and farm ditches could make farmlands a maze of intersecting "no farm zones" that could make farming impractical. * Explain any problems you or your neighbors have had dealing with wetlands or waters. If you personally have had problems with the narrow "normal farming" exemption, share your experience. Have you tried to build a farm pond and been told "no?" Have you tried to plant tree crops in areas where you farmed corn and been told "no?" Have you been told not to use certain tillage practices? Have you been told that you cannot use your prior converted croplands for some reason? Your personal experiences or those of your neighbors are important and your Key Messages should include: The farming and ranching exemptions in current law are important, but they have been very narrowly applied by the agencies-and they will not protect farmers and ranchers from the proposed "waters" rule. * Explain why those claiming that farmers and ranchers should have no concerns because they are "exempted" from the rule are wrong. It is important to convey that the "normal farming and ranching" exemption only applies to a specific type of Clean Water Act permit for "dredge and fill" materials. There is no farm or ranch exemption from Clean Water Act permit requirements for "pollutants" like fertilizer, herbicide or pest control products. Under the proposed rule, many common and necessary practices like weed control and fertilizer spreading will be prohibited in or near so-called "waters" unless you have a Clean Water Act permit. Second, EPA's new guidance on the "dredge and fill" exemption actually narrows an exemption that already existed, by tying it to mandatory compliance with what used to be voluntary NRCS standards. Third, EPA and the Corps of Engineers have interpreted the "normal" to mean only long-standing operations in place since the 1970s-not newer or expanded farming or ranching. Your Key Message should be: EPA's so-called exemptions will not protect farmers and ranchers from the proposed "waters" rule. If farmlands are regulated as "waters," farming and ranching will be difficult, if not impossible. It is critical that EPA and the Corps hear from you on the harmful impacts of this rule. Please use this opportunity to have your voice heard. Please use the following format for your letter. As stated above, it is important that you personalize the letter with information from your own experiences or observations. MESSAGE TO EPA: Water Docket Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20460 Attn: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880 RE: Comments on the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Definition of 'Waters of the U.S.' Under the Clean Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW- 2011-0880 To Whom it May Concern: I am a [farmer/rancher/etc.] in [location]. I am writing to submit comments to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding "Definition of 'Waters of the U.S.' Under the Clean Water Act." The proposed rule would significantly expand the scope of "navigable waters" subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction by regulating small and remote "waters"-many of which are not even wet or considered "waters" under any common understanding of that word. [SPACE AVAILABLE FOR PERSONAL COMMENTS FROM SENDER. If sender does not add comments, then the four paragraphs in this letter will be submitted to the docket.] The proposed rule does not provide clarity or certainty as EPA has stated. The only thing that is clear and certain is that, under this rule, it will be more difficult to farm and ranch, or make changes to the land-even if those changes would benefit the environment. I work to protect water quality regardless of whether it is legally required by EPA. It's one of the values I hold as a farmer or rancher. Farmers and ranchers like me will be severely impacted. Therefore, I ask you to withdraw the proposed rule.