Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EPA’s Climate Regulations Will Harm American Manufacturing
The Heritage Foundation ^ | March 4, 2014 | Nicolas Loris and Filip Jolevski

Posted on 03/07/2014 4:12:40 PM PST by 1rudeboy

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) forthcoming climate change regulations for new and existing electricity generating units have been appropriately labeled the “war on coal,”[1] because the proposed limits for carbon dioxide emissions would essentially prohibit the construction of new coal-fired power plants and force existing ones into early retirement.

However, the casualties will extend well beyond the coal industry, hurting families and businesses and taking a significant toll on American manufacturing across the nation. Congress should stop the EPA and all other federal agencies from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

Driving Energy Prices Up, Economic Activity Down

Coal provides approximately 40 percent of America’s electricity generation.[2] By significantly limiting the use of an affordable energy source, the EPA’s regulations will increase electricity prices for American households. Since low-income families spend a larger proportion of their income on energy, a tax that increases energy prices would disproportionately affect the budgets of the poorest American families.

Higher energy prices as a result of the regulations will squeeze both production and consumption. Since energy is a critical input for most goods and services, Americans will be hit repeatedly with higher prices as businesses pass higher costs onto consumers. However, if a company had to absorb the costs, high energy costs would shrink profit margins and prevent businesses from investing and expanding. The cutbacks result in less output, fewer new jobs, and less income.

Heritage Foundation analysts modeled the economic effects of a phase-out of coal between the years 2015 and 2038. Using the Heritage Foundation Energy Model, a derivative of the federal government’s National Energy Model System, we found that by the end of 2023, nearly 600,000 jobs will be lost, a family of four’s income will drop by $1,200 per year, and aggregate gross domestic product decreases by $2.23 trillion over the entire period of the analysis.[3 ]

Manufacturing Hit Hard

America’s manufacturing base will be particularly harmed by the EPA’s climate regulations. Manufacturing accounts for over 330,000 of the jobs lost.[4] This occurs for a number of reasons.

As more coal generation is taken offline, the marketplace must find a way to make up for that lost supply. The Heritage Energy Model builds in the most cost-effective means of replacing the lost coal through a combination of consumers decreasing energy use as an adjustment to higher prices and increased power generation from other sources.

Manufacturing is an energy-intensive industry, and the impact of the higher energy prices on manufacturing averages to more than 770 jobs losses per congressional district. However, not all regions are affected the same, as districts in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois are especially hit hard. In fact, 19 out of the top 20 worse off congressional districts from the Administration’s war on coal are located in the Midwest region. In those districts, the manufacturing industry, on average, will slash more than 1,600 jobs by 2023. The table at the end of the paper shows the estimates of the decrease of manufacturing employment per congressional district by 2023.

Furthermore, manufacturing growth will be harmed as a result of the fuel switching that will occur to make up for lost coal generation. Natural gas will be diverted away from manufacturing and to power generation. As a result, the Heritage Energy model projects that natural gas prices will increase 28 percent by 2030.

Natural gas and liquids produced with natural gas provide a feedstock for fertilizers, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, waste treatment, food processing, fuel for industrial boilers, transportation fuel, and much more. The chemical-manufacturing base alone is building 148 new operations topping over $100 billion in response to current and projected low natural gas prices from the shale gas boom.[5] As the U.S. is experiencing a renaissance in manufacturing and energy-intensive industries, the Administration’s war on coal could adversely affect America’s competitive advantage.

Availability of Carbon Capture and Sequestration

The primary reason the EPA’s regulations will ban the construction of coal-fired electricity generating units is that to meet the thresholds, new plants will have to install carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology. As identified by the Obama Administration’s Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage 2010 report, implementation of CCS has a number of extremely difficult obstacles to overcome. There are questions of technical scalability, regulatory challenges, long-term liability of storing the captured carbon dioxide, and above all, cost.[6 ]

No credible basis exists to state that CCS is adequately demonstrated today, since no large-scale power plant in the U.S. has CCS. One large-scale CCS project is currently under contract—the Kemper County Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant—but it is hardly a model for new coal-fired plants for the rest of the country. Setting aside the fact that the project has had nearly half a billion dollars in cost overruns and received over $400 million in Department of Energy grants and preferential tax credits,[7] the plant is using a lower-grade lignite coal rather than higher-grade bituminous and subbituminous coal found in many parts of the rest of the country.

The Kemper plant will use IGCC technology that turns coal into gas as opposed to pulverized combustion and the captured carbon dioxide will serve a purpose for enhanced oil recovery to help finance the plant. New coal-fired plants in other parts of the country will not have those opportunities, so the Kemper plant is not an indicator of adequate demonstration. Further, the fact that the plant is not actually operating disqualifies it as the model. CCS should be pursued only if companies believe it is in their economic interest to do so—for instance, if profitable opportunities for enhanced oil recovery exist nearby.

Congress Stepping In

Senator Joe Manchin (D–WV) and Representative Ed Whitfield (R–KY) have introduced the Electricity Security and Affordability Act (H.R. 3826) that would require that greenhouse gas regulations for electricity generating units meet certain standards that prove they are economically feasible to achieve and have a demonstrated positive environmental benefit. Any imposed standards to limit or contain emissions cannot have been tested in isolation and with special treatment like the Kemper plant but must have been used commercially for a year by multiple plants (at least six) in multiple regions in order to be representative of the industry.

To truly ensure that the technology is cost-effective, Congress should strip away all subsidies and Department of Energy spending for CCS in order to prevent the federal government from presenting a handful of fundamentally uneconomic CCS plants as proof that the standards are legitimate. However, the most effective policy solution would be to prohibit the EPA and all agencies from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

—Nicolas D. Loris is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Filip Jolevski is a Research Assistant in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: coal; epa; epaoutofcontrol; eparegulations; jobloss; joblossgraph; laborforce; manufacturing
[1] Zack Coleman, “White House adviser: ‘War on coal is exactly what’s needed’” The Hill, June 25, 2013, http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/307571-white-house-adviser-war-on-coal-is-exactly-whats-needed (accessed February 28, 2014).

[2] U.S. Energy Information Agency, “Short Term Outlook—February 2014,” Table 7d, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/tables/pdf/7dtab.pdf (accessed February 26, 2014).

[3] See Nicolas D. Loris, Kevin D. Dayaratna, and David W. Kreutzer, “EPA Power Plant Regulations: A Backdoor Energy Tax,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No 2683, December 5, 2013, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/12/epa-power-plant-regulations-a-backdoor-energy-tax (accessed February 26, 2014).

[4] Out of a total of 670,000 jobs lost. This differs from the estimates referred to earlier (600,000 jobs lost), which are calculated from the Heritage Foundation Energy Model using employment figures from the Current Population Survey. These new estimates are calculated from the same Heritage Foundation Energy Model but use employment data from the American Community Survey in order to illustrate the impact in various congressional districts. Other coal dependent states that are not heavy manufacturers will also be significantly impacted by the EPA’s regulations. For instance, although West Virginia and Wyoming are relatively low on manufacturing jobs lost, Heritage estimates these will be the two hardest hit states in terms of overall job losses per 100,000 employed. For a more detailed explanation of the overall job losses and methodology, see ibid.

[5] Business Standard, “U.S. Chemical Industry Invest $100 Bn Due to Shale Gas Boom,” February 22, 2014, http://www.business-standard.com/content/b2b-chemicals/us-chemical-industry-invest-100-bn-due-to-shale-gas-boom-114022400678_1.html (accessed February 26, 2014).

[6] Environmental Protection Agency, “Report of the Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage,” August 2010, http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ccs/CCS-Task-Force-Report-2010.pdf (accessed February 26, 2014).

[7] Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “Kemper County IGCC Fact Sheet: Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage Project,” http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/kemper.html (accessed February 26, 2014).

1 posted on 03/07/2014 4:12:40 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; Mase; expat_panama; 1010RD; SAJ; thackney

ping


2 posted on 03/07/2014 4:13:59 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

It is 0’sj ob to completely destroy the economy to bringbthe U.S. to its knees. The EPA is his right hand man....


3 posted on 03/07/2014 4:16:34 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

It is 0’sj ob to completely destroy the economy to bringbthe U.S. to its knees. The EPA is his right hand man....


4 posted on 03/07/2014 4:17:40 PM PST by jsanders2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I’d love to see the number of jobs the EPA has cost since its unholy birth.


5 posted on 03/07/2014 4:19:30 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
A photo my congressman posted to twitter today.

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
6 posted on 03/07/2014 4:26:37 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Wait a minute!

Regulations can harm manufacturing?


7 posted on 03/07/2014 4:34:57 PM PST by rdb3 (Get out the putter, this one's on the green.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Bring back American jobs, now.

Funny that the guy who says this likes the biggest, recent job destroyer, Obamacare.

8 posted on 03/07/2014 4:38:43 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
What a disgrace. 10,000 people controlling 315 million. . Hmm. . "When in the course of human events. . ."
9 posted on 03/07/2014 4:42:06 PM PST by Art in Idaho (Conservatism is the only Hope for Western Civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Please note the Wisconsin job losses. Anyone think this might be revenge against Scott Walker?


10 posted on 03/07/2014 5:16:43 PM PST by Senator_Blutarski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Senator_Blutarski

More than 16,000 in Michigan.

That’ll learn us for passing RTW.


11 posted on 03/07/2014 5:20:54 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Wait another minute. America still has manufacturing?


12 posted on 03/07/2014 5:23:42 PM PST by lowbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Are you serious?


13 posted on 03/07/2014 5:24:05 PM PST by rdb3 (Get out the putter, this one's on the green.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Senator_Blutarski

I honestly don’t know. Maybe Wisconsin has a lot of coal-fueled power plants?


14 posted on 03/07/2014 5:26:06 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: rdb3

Yup.


15 posted on 03/07/2014 5:31:35 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot (Science is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; All

Thank you for referencing that article 1rudeboy. Please bear in mind that the following critique is directed aganst the artice and not at you.

What’s harming America is actually the following. Parents are not making sure that their children are being taught the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers. Otherwise, even grade school children might be able to point out the following major constitutional problems with the EPA.

To begin with, the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses of the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide them from the legislative and executive branches, to clarify that all federal legislative powers are vested in the elected members of Congress. So Congress has a constitutional monopoly on federal legislative powers whether it wants it or not. And by delegating legislative / regulatory powers to non-elected bureaucrats, Congress is wrongly protecteding federal legislative powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of the clauses referenced above.

Did I say federal legislative powers?

Note that even if Congress did have a constitutional option to delegate legislative powers to non-elected government bureaucrats, it remains that the states have never delegated to Congress, via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate environmental issues. So Congress has not only unconstitutionally delegated legislative powers to non-elected bureaucrats, those running the EPA in this example, but Congress is delegating legislative powers that it does not have.

What a mess! :^(


16 posted on 03/07/2014 5:46:06 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

I believe that it’s a flaw in the Constitution: on paper (in my opinion), Congress does have the authority to delegate that power. But it is supposed to oversee it, and it doesn’t. Committee hearings are boring.


17 posted on 03/07/2014 5:53:49 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

We have got to shut that whole agency down. Its the only way.


18 posted on 03/07/2014 6:00:13 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; All
Congress does have the authority to delegate that power.

Thanks for replying. Will you please substantiate your assertion above with a reference to specific constitutional clause?

Here's the clause that I reference to substantiate my statement.

Article. I, Section 1:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

I hope that you're not basing your assertion above on something that activist justices dreamed up.

19 posted on 03/07/2014 6:08:14 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2

The states can do their own regulating and cross border negotiating on their own and do it much cheaper.

I’ve long said that I would be happy to volunteer to learn some of the collection and monitoring techniques just because I like to get out in nature. With volunteers you’ll get both conservatives and liberals so you’re likely to get good data one way or the other.


20 posted on 03/07/2014 6:09:03 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10
Article I also, Section 8: aka the Commerce Clause.

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.

Congress has the plenary authority to regulate, therefore delegate.

So no, it was not "dreamed up." The legislative, judicial, non-profit, and for-profit activism regarding the Commerce Clause came later.

21 posted on 03/07/2014 6:15:49 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
EPA’s Climate Regulations Will Have Already Seriously Harmed American Manufacturing and Driven Much of It Off Shore

Head Line Corrected

22 posted on 03/07/2014 6:16:40 PM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Great read. It reminded me that I haven’t sent my annual donation to Heritage yet this year. They do really good work and I wish I could send them more.


23 posted on 03/07/2014 6:35:55 PM PST by Mase (Save me from the people who would save me from myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

WILL?


24 posted on 03/07/2014 6:59:32 PM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yes you are right. I am just furious over this woodstove thing. And shutting down all the coal fired power plants. We will all be sitting in the dark if the EPA has their way. Its the single most rogue agency among many that we have let run amok.


25 posted on 03/07/2014 7:32:38 PM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
EPA’s Climate Regulations Will Harm American Manufacturing

Worse than the elimination of tariffs has?

26 posted on 03/08/2014 2:57:46 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

Comment #28 Removed by Moderator

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: Elsie
By Chapter, Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (2014)
30 posted on 03/08/2014 7:32:47 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Dang!

I blink and things disappear!


31 posted on 03/08/2014 11:42:07 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Dang!

I blink and things disappear!


32 posted on 03/08/2014 11:43:32 AM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
SECTION III: ANIMAL OR VEGETABLE FATS AND OILS AND THEIR CLEAVAGE PRODUCTS;
PREPARED EDIBLE FATS; ANIMAL OR VEGETABLE WAXES



33 posted on 03/08/2014 12:14:02 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

I’ve been staring for five minutes...so far, so good. :-)


34 posted on 03/08/2014 12:18:24 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

There's cleavage; and then there is...











https://www.google.com/search?q=das-neue-handwerk.de&rls=com.microsoft:en-US:IE-Address&rlz=1I7ADRA_enUS475&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=HXsbU-yOJ5CFyQH9lYHgDQ&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg&biw=1366&bih=615#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=x7YT9TVa9KYUvM%253A%3BJq4ldHPfnpDvlM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkommazumpunkt.de%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2011%252F10%252Fkalender_das_neue_handwerk.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fkommazumpunkt.de%252F%253Fp%253D457%3B800%3B1788





35 posted on 03/08/2014 12:22:56 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Just what Illinois needs. The GOP needs a “Let America Work” campaign.


36 posted on 03/08/2014 4:49:50 PM PST by 1010RD (First, Do No Harm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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