That fact sheet says this...
“Emissions from small farms, restaurants, and all but the very largest commercial facilities will not be covered by these programs at this time.”
These regs will be imposed upon them in short order and watch food costs soar to ionospheric heights never before imagined.
If you get your power from a coal fired power plant, be it a farm, restaurant, etc. You will be paying for this in the higher prices.
Thereby through those prices... you will do everything possible to control your heating/cooling expenses.
What regulation needs to be written.
Oh and in case you have your own industrial boiler, being small, etc. will keep you exempt? Nope...check this out
Agencies Critique Boiler Industrys Excessive Claims of the Cost of EPAs Proposed Rule
The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) issued a report that refutes the exaggerated cost estimates that the boiler industry has claimed would result from EPAs proposed air pollution regulations for industrial boilers. According to NACAA, industrys claims include inflated estimates of how much EPAs June 2010 proposed hazardous air pollution regulation for boilers would cost and the threat it poses to American jobs. In addition, the industry estimates ignore the enormous public health benefits and creation of new jobs that controls on emissions from industrial boilers would provide.
In August 2010, the industrial boiler industry published a report that purported to calculate the cost of the rule, without giving due consideration to its benefits. Besides claiming that the rule would cost $113 billion economy-wide, the industry report stated that it would put over 300,000 jobs at risk.
NACAAs detailed report entitled, EPAs Proposed Regulations on Hazardous Air Pollutants from Boilers: A Critique of the Boiler Industrys Excessive Cost Claims, sets the record straight by refuting the outsized estimates contained in the industry report. It describes some of the erroneous features of the industry analysis, including: (1) the number of sources that must install controls was grossly overestimated; (2) the cost of the rule did not incorporate positive economic benefits from new capital investmentincluding the creation of new jobs; (3) the positive impacts of increased life expectancy, reduced health care costs, and other health-related benefits were not factored in the report; (4) one-time project costs were overestimated; and, (5) assumptions about the negative impact of investments in pollution controls are unlikely in the current economy.
Oh, come on, now; next you'll e trying to tell us that the EPA/Clean Air Act/Endangered Species Act somehow had something to do with the loss of forest jobs, closing of sawmills, and rising lumber prices...
Oh, wait! They DID!