Skip to comments.EPA's war on consumers, affordable electricity and jobs
Posted on 10/20/2012 5:24:52 PM PDT by tobyhill
Over the past year, weve heard a lot about the Obama Administrations War on Coal. The White House has been quick to dismiss the notion, pointing to their all-of-the-above energy policy. Theyve attributed the demise of coal-fired power in part to the record-low prices of natural gas. While most agree that the coal industry has faced challenges, especially under current economic conditions, the argument that people are shutting down coal power plants because gas is cheaper just doesnt hold water.
Why? Coal is by far the cheapest source of electricity. So if cost isnt the reason, what is?
Nationally, 175 coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be shut down from 2012 to 2016, according to an analysis by the non-partisan U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Industry experts predict that over a similar time frame these closures could threaten hundreds of thousands of jobs. According to a 2011 study by the National Economic Research Associates, two of the proposed EPA regulations could lead to a net employment loss of almost 60,000 jobs in Pennsylvania between now and 2020. The same report showed that Pennsylvania could witness average electricity prices increase by as much as 17%.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
EPA is Obama’s SS. They push for his agenda. Right, wrong it does not matter. The “master” wants it, let America sit in the dark.
FERC then can find someone to blame and let NERC get the Bounty.
Here's a perfect example in South Carolina (emphasis mine):
The plant was one of two directors decided to permanently close because of the cost the company would face to make them compliant with the Environmental Protection Agencys new Mercury and Air Toxins Standard for air emissions.
The other facility slated to close was the Jefferies coal and oil generating units in Moncks Corner.
I sincerely hope dumping these ridiculous regulations are at the top of Romney's to-do-immediately list.
With the current Natural Gas Prices, probably not much.
Once the EPA can make up stories about fracking and shut that down, hold on to your wallet!
Because we owe all our resources to China? War baby!
HOORAY Rep. Glenn Thompson!
Please help me out here, I’m a little fuzzy from where or what the EPA derives it’s authority. Are they simply overseers of laws passed by congress - and executive orders? Are the officers strictly political appointees? Is there anything keeping Mitt from chucking the entire leadership staff??
Whem oBammy was originally campaigning, he made several statements boiling down to: If you want to use coal, go right ahead - it’ll just cost three times as much! He was rather arrogant about it as I remember.
This is not verbatem but the gist of his statement. I’ve tried to locate it but haven’t had any luck.
***Theyve attributed the demise of coal-fired power in part to the record-low prices of natural gas.***
Coal is still heap. It costs more to ship a railroad car of coal to a power plant than the coal costs.
They can lock in the cost of coal for 25 years and not be hit with the fluctuation of the cost of gas.
I retired from a coal plant several years ago. Now the EPA has decided that our low sulfur coal is not low enough so they decided to demand we shut down or but in unneeded scrubbers.
The company has decided to put in the new scrubbers, but there is a problem.
The Public Service Commission has refused to allow the coal company to pass the cost along to the consumers.
Here is an article about it. Page 24. Arkansas Living Magazine. A GRASSROOTS EFFORT TO SAVE FLINT CREEK.
Until the early 80's when the Natural Gas lobby bloomed almost all electric utility gas contracts were fixed rate/fixed price.
If the price does not fluctuate, you cannot have a market.
I fly a lot locally. Every day I fly over huge windmills that are supposed to be producing gigawatts of electricity. Not! Most days you could use them for $30M clotheslines. They look like the Martians’ tripods after the Martians all died from bacterial infection.
I wish, I really wish, that in the 2nd Romney-Obama debate, Romney would have asked Obama if he (Obama) is still committed to reducing CO2 emissions. Because if Obama is committed to reducing CO2 emissions, then this fiction that Obama is trying to pass off, that he is for or is assisting the growth of fossil fuel supplies (oil, nat. gas, or coal), is clearly a fiction, even to any lib smart enough to realize that CO2 (or CO, if you prefer THAT!) is an inescapable result of burning fossil fuel.
Delegation as such need not be a danger to freedom.
The interesting point is why delegation has become necessary on such a scale. First place among the causes enumerated is given to the fact that "Congress nowadays passes so many laws every year" and that "much of the detail is so technical as to be unsuitable for Congressional discussion".
But if this were all there would be no reason why the detail should not be worked out before rather than after Congress passes a law. What is probably in many cases a much more important reason why, "if Congress were not willing to delegate law-making power, Congress would be unable to pass the kind and quantity of legislation which public opinion requires" is innocently revealed in the little sentence that "many of the laws affect people's lives so closely that elasticity is essential"!
What does this mean if not conferment of arbitrary power, power limited by no fixed principles and which in the opinion of Congress cannot be limited by definite and unambiguous rules?
Actually, the cost of the new gas powered plant gets passed along to consumers. Unless, of course, the Public Service Comission in the State in question denies that, in which case no new plant is built, no old plant is revamped, and the utility has to either buy electricity from an outside source (also probably has to be approved by the PSC), or eventually goes out of business. I've read that in Germany, the Gov't is attempting to force utilities to use more wind power and operate at an overall loss. That should work well.
He can change the political appointees and issue his own EOs as agency directives. I have also read that Romney administration is considering consolidating agencies and thereby eliminating entire areas of bureaucracy and the jobs they entail. Congress can cut their funding or embargo it.
The POTUS cannot fire civil service workers.