Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA to kill new coal-fired plants through first-ever greenhouse-gas regulations
Hot Air ^ | MARCH 27, 2012 | ED MORRISSEY

Posted on 03/27/2012 7:37:42 AM PDT by Qbert

If you thought gas prices will never stop rising, just wait until you see what happens to electricity after the Barack Obama’s EPA gets its way.  The agency will deliver on Obama’s election promise to bankrupt any new coal-fired electrical production in its first-ever regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions, the Washington Post reports.  The new regulatory regime will all but guarantee that new coal-fired plants won’t be built to replace others shutting down:

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.

The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed on mercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.

“This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all of the above’ energy policy.”

Well, it’s not, obviously.  Nor has Obama ever honestly intended to apply an “all of the above” energy policy; he mouths the words, but his actions are hostile to hydrocarbon-based energy.  The most honest discussion on energy policy from Obama came in the January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, in which he promised to bankrupt new coal-based facilities:

The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.

You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.

They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.

If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.

This leads us to the natural-gas option mentioned by the Post.  The response might be, “Well, okay, Obama’s bankrupting the coal industry, but we can still use natural gas.”  That’s only true if we can get the natural gas.  The EPA has also begun blocking the use of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, which allows for massive improvement in extraction and access to vast amounts of natural gas. Note well that Obama included natural gas among those sources to which his policies would be hostile, and so far he’s proving it.

Obama has no interest in an “all of the above” policy on energy.  He wants to drive up energy costs in order to make his favored alternatives somewhat competitive, even though none of them can match the production scope of hydrocarbon sources that are found in abundance in the US.  Obama has less interest in producing power than in exercising it, and Congress needs to put shackles on this EPA before working-class families have to start lighting candles rather than flipping on the light switch.

TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: capandtrade; co2; coal; coalplants; energy; epa; epaoutofcontrol; globalwarmingscam; greenhousegases; methane; opec; petroleum; waronenergy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last
To: Qbert

what if we find out the premise of “greenhouse gas” is FAKE?????

Can I have my lightbulbs back and go back to cheap gas??

21 posted on 03/27/2012 8:22:40 AM PDT by Dick Vomer (democrats are like flies, whatever they don't eat they sh#t on.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
We haven't seen anything yet. The rest of this communists rat term will damn finish American and will never recover without Newt as President. We are almost converted to a dictatorship with the King Obama and his communists Administration in power. And if another term he will finish the job. Nothing will stop the communists Democratic Party.
22 posted on 03/27/2012 8:24:39 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Logical me

It was a Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt that pushed for rural electrification that made the heartland what it is today. Now we have another Democratic president who wants to take away those inexpensive sources of power.

I imagine that brownouts and blackouts are not going to enhance his popularity, but he doesn’t have to worry — the effects won’t be felt until after the election so the sheeple will likely vote for him anyway.

23 posted on 03/27/2012 8:32:18 AM PDT by CedarDave (Romney: The Etch A Sketch Candidate:
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative; Dilbert San Diego
"Why is the EPA allowed to decree regulations, with no imput from Congess or anyone else?"

Because in 2007 SCOTUS ruled that CO2 was a pollutant.

Bush didn't move to implement so as to give Congress a chance to pre-empt SCOTUS.

And, Congress did move that way in that decicided to do that and they went thru the process of cap and tax versus cap and trade and cap and trade was all settled in 2008.

So, Congress moved forward in 2009 in which the House would write the Cap and Trade Legislation and the Senate would write the energy bill to accompany cap and trade.

That failed so in 2010 a second attempt began in the senate led by Kerry, Lieberman and Graham which was more limited but it also failed, but EPA revised their thresholds around that legislation.

So, in 2010 EPA moved forward, and many, many lawsuits were filed. Then in late 2010 many of plantiffs tried to get the courts to stay or block EPA from moving forward until all the lawsuits could be heard and ruled on. The courts said no stays.

As for enforcement only one company in 2011 fell under the reg and that didn't cause any problems.

Eventually Congress will get it together and what ever they come up with will be more stringent than what EPA is doing.

24 posted on 03/27/2012 8:33:16 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WKUHilltopper

[ Obama’s “turn them into a 3rd world country, keep them freezing, broke and hungry and they’ll obey anything” energy program. Hey—it has worked in Africa for decades, it’ll work here. ]

Heck at least the in the third world you could open a coal plant even if it puts out more smoke than heat.

It is perfectly fine for china to pollute the crap outta their own people and the rest of the world but heaven forbid we open any new coal plants that put out far less pollution than any currently existing plants that are still in operation.....

We are shooting ourselves in the foot and the rest of the world is laughing at us.

25 posted on 03/27/2012 8:37:53 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Because the Congress just sits there. The EPA should NOT be allowed to do something like this; but, they do because they know they can get away with it. Yell at the Congress. They are the ones who should be passing legislation that would cancel out this overreach.

26 posted on 03/27/2012 9:01:13 AM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
I know of at least one coal fired plant that has switched over to natural gas fired generation.
Let's hope they all do to keep the electrons flowing.
27 posted on 03/27/2012 9:02:01 AM PDT by Falcon4.0
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Qbert
Congress needs to put shackles on this EPA before working-class families have to start lighting candles rather than flipping on the light switch.

Old joke...

Q: What did people in Zimbabwe light their houses with before candles?

A: Rhodesian electricity.

Oh yeah, thats right. Rhodesia isn't there anymore.

It is now a sub-third world sh!thole.


28 posted on 03/27/2012 10:06:20 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego

“Why is the EPA allowed to just decree regulations, with no input from Congress or anyone else?”

I think you already know the answer to that question, but ... here it is: Congress gave the EPA that authority under the Clean Air Act of 1970 and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. And those Acts were signed into law by Republican Presidents Nixon and GHW Bush. Further, in both 1970 and 1990, there were more than 40 Republican senators. Neither would have withstood a veto nor would they have left a filbustered Senate if Republicans did not want them to. Both are products of true bipartisanship.

Also, the EPA does accept input on its proposed rules both by written comments and public hearings. If anybody wants to comment on the rule, check out the EPA rule proposal at Federal bureaucrats routinely post and politely ignore comments made by their serfs and subjects.

29 posted on 03/27/2012 12:15:32 PM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-29 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson