Jim Roth talks about Pres. Trump’s Energy Executive Order on Oklahoma News Report

On Friday, Phillips Murrah Director and Chair of the Firm’s Clean Energy Practice Group, Jim Roth, appeared on the television show Oklahoma News Report on OETA.

Roth spoke with reporter Bob Sands about President Trump’s energy-related executive order that initiates a review of former President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which restricts greenhouse gas emissions at coal-fired power plants.

According to the ONR report, Oklahoma public utilities are moving forward on new renewable energy projects despite the President Trump’s order.

“Market dynamics are going to dictate the outcome, not political will,” Roth said on the news program. “We’re at a point, thankfully, in American ingenuity that renewable technologies have improved to point to where they are often the cheapest form of energy.”

From Oklahoma News Report:

The president’s executive order to the EPA to rewrite the Clean Power Plan doesn’t mean much according to Oklahoma utilities and energy experts. OG&E says it is on target already to meet the plans requirements and is now planning a new solar facility. Energy experts say renewables have already replaced coal in the amount of electricity being generated in Oklahoma. This story aired on the ONR on OETA-The Oklahoma Network. For more information, go to the ONR web site For more about OETA-The Oklahoma Network, visit

Click on the video player below to view an edited video featuring Roth’s segments on the news program:




To see the full ONR news segment as it was broadcast on OETA, click here:

Roth: Too early to know for sure

By Jim Roth, Director and Chair of the Firm’s Clean Energy Practice Group. This column was originally published in The Journal Record on November 21, 2016.

Jim Roth is a Director and Chair of the firm’s Clean Energy Practice.

Too early to know for sure

With the new president not yet taking office until Jan. 20, it is surely too early to know for sure what changes are in store for America’s energy and environment policies. But certain things are known with relative certainty: The philosophies of the outgoing and incoming administrations are certainly much different from one another. But what is unknown is how much will the effects of each be different and in what ways.

For eight years the Obama Administration has prioritized government action in the areas of energy and environmental policy. In fact, according to the White House’s website: “The President has taken unprecedented action to build the foundation for a clean energy economy, tackle the issue of climate change, and protect our environment.”

It is this action, especially the executive actions without congressional approval that has offended many republicans and has drawn the ire of the president-elect.

Since 2008, domestic energy related emissions have fallen to their lowest level in 20 years, due in large part to the massive boom in domestic natural gas production, which has helped to economically move dirtier coal out of the market in electricity and industrial output. Also, America has seen rapid growth in renewable energy development and Americans have more clean energy options today than any other time in history. Those technological progresses, coupled with many Clean Air Act policies and other regulatory pressures, have America headed toward a lower carbon future, where energy security is becoming a national security reality because of domestic production.

It seems obvious that the president-elect will make good on his campaign promise to “roll-back” regulations, but what is less obvious is: How far, which regulations and to what effect?

Obama’s Clean Power Plan, which Trump has vowed to kill, will be an early target along with several environmental and energy rules under litigation including the EPA’s controversial Waters of the US Rule, which has concerned many farm states, the Department of the Interior’s fracking rule and issues around public lands leasing for drilling. But again, at what practical impact is still anyone’s guess.

For example, even if Trump tries to re-open many coal mines in Appalachia, where the product is much dirtier than Wyoming’s Powder River Basin, where is the market for that product? Few utilities are still burning coal, many are under court-ordered retirement schedules and the enormous supply of cleaner-burning natural gas will continue to undercut the price of coal.

Also, and sometimes at the same pro-coal rallies, candidate Trump made promises about greater drilling for oil and natural gas that will only further over-supply the gas picture and make coal less competitive. So it’s a bit of a stretch to think that local utilities are going to ask their regulators for permission to raise the price of electricity so they can burn more coal and create more pollution. Market forces are at play here.

And political forces are at play in other ways that leave coal a diminished future, in spite of campaign promises from the president-elect. He would still have to convince the Republican Congress to join him in reversing America’s course toward a cleaner energy future.

Take wind for example. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, from Iowa, the original author of the wind energy production tax credit, warned candidate Trump in August “If he wants to do away with it, he’ll have to get a bill through Congress, and he’ll do it over my dead body.”

For environmentalists, there is certainly reason for worry as their priorities will be under attack from day one. Particular concern is justified when you consider that a climate-denier and skeptic named Myron Ebell is a possible nominee to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. But for those on the other side, their optimism may need to wait and see what actually happens legislatively and market-wise. Business can most assuredly expect relaxed regulations on energy consumption, industrial processes and their environmental footprint.

But the idea that all of America’s recent movements in energy and the environment are going to be reversed may prove to be more like the pre-election “big, beautiful wall to be paid for by Mexico” giving way to the post-election admission that it’s probably more likely a “fence in some places” if he can get Congress to pay for it with your money. Stay tuned.

Jim Roth, a former Oklahoma corporation commissioner, is an attorney with Phillips Murrah P.C. in Oklahoma City, where his practice focuses on clean, green energy for Oklahoma.

Roth: Rhetoric and regulation

By Jim Roth, Director and Chair of the Firm’s Clean Energy Practice Group. This column was originally published in The Journal Record on August 15, 2016.

Jim Roth is a Director and Chair of the firm’s Clean Energy Practice.

Jim Roth is a Director and Chair of the firm’s Clean Energy Practice.

Rhetoric and regulation

I’m about to share an opinion that seems highly unpopular today: I believe there is a role for government and responsible regulation to keep people safe.

Why is that so unpopular? Or even controversial to some? Perhaps it’s because I’m an Oklahoman who dares suggest that government has a role to play in our collective lives or perhaps it’s because I’m suggesting that people may need protection, in some form, from businesses that serve the public at large.

But if you are the parent of a 10-year-old boy who died at a Kansas City water park, or of any of the three young girls dumped out of a malfunctioning Ferris wheel in Tennessee, or of the boy who fell out of a wooden roller coaster in Pennsylvania, all in the past week, you may be wondering why tragedy befell your loved one and why more wasn’t done by the regulator to keep them safe.

Regulation, such as the role of regulators to inspect and approve the operation of amusement parks, equipment and rides, comes in many forms in American life, yet it seems to have become a bad word in political rhetoric in these modern times. And to be honest, I’m really at a loss as to why.

We’ve all heard the rhetoric: “too many regulations are killing jobs” or “we don’t need government regulation micro-managing our lives.” But which specific regulations are actually killing jobs by saving people’s lives? And if that’s the trade-off, doesn’t regulation win that swap each day and in every way?

I once had a close friend, a very smart business owner with hundreds of employees, tell me he was voting for George W. Bush so he would “rein in OSHA and needless safety regulations.” My friend left me perplexed as he seemingly framed it in an excessive cost-to-doing-business argument.

Yet, when I did some research for myself, I learned that the American Journal of Industrial Medicine actually concluded that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration does not kill jobs; rather, it prevents jobs from killing workers.

The much-maligned Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for implementing and enforcing America’s Clear Air Act, among many other environmental and public health law objectives. Chiefly the Clean Air Act, first passed in 1973, and amended in 1990, both by Republican presidents, is a comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions and air quality by removing dangerous pollutants that “endanger public health and welfare.”

As of the 2011 prospective cost-benefit analysis, it has been determined that massive reductions in pollutants like sulfur dioxide, mercury and nitrous oxide have now helped avoid up to 230,000 premature deaths for Americans over the age of 30 each year, help avoid 280 infant deaths a year, have dramatically reduced bronchitis, asthma and other respiratory disease and in turn will help America save over $3.7 trillion in annual benefits by 2020.

And yet this campaign for president features a debate over reopening old coal mines for out-of-work coal miners, who while mining the greatest source of pollution when burned, suffer much risk to injury and health themselves. The better idea may be to retrain them for something that is better for themselves and all the rest of us.

So when you hear politicians talk in large generalized platitudes attacking big, bad ol’ “job-killing regulations,” please ask them:

Which regulation can you prove has cost how many jobs?

Or, which amusement park, factory or meat-processing plant should we not inspect?

Or, what harm, injury or death to your loved ones would you say is worth having for less regulation?

And please be specific.

Jim Roth, a former Oklahoma corporation commissioner, is an attorney with Phillips Murrah PC in Oklahoma City, where his practice focuses on clean, green energy for Oklahoma.