Posted on 05/29/2015 12:44:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has signaled in a letter to President Obama that his state might not comply with a forthcoming rule limiting carbon emissions from power plants.
The likely GOP presidential candidate told Obama in the May 21 letter that he has "deep concerns regarding our ability to develop a state plan to comply with" the proposed Environmental Protection Agency targets. The implicit threat makes Walker the highest-profile governor to consider endorsing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's strategy of undercutting the regulation through states refusing to submit a compliance plan, though he ultimately stopped short of doing so.
"The proposed rule is riddled with inaccuracies, questionable assumptions and deficiencies that make the development of a responsible state plan unworkable for Wisconsin," Walker wrote in the letter, obtained by the Washington Examiner.
The EPA wants the Badger State to cut its electricity emissions 34 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The proposed rule, which is due for finalization this summer and is the centerpiece of Obama's climate agenda, calls for slashing power emissions nationwide by 30 percent.
Walker said his state's utility regulators estimate that complying with the rule would cost up to $13.4 billion and drive up electricity rates as much as 29 percent. The proposed rule won't adequately credit Wisconsin for previous actions to reduce emissions, which has also happened in other midwestern states that have added renewable energy in recent years.
"There is no question in my mind that significant job loss will be a byproduct of this rule if it is not withdrawn or corrected," Walker said.
The EPA, however, contends reduced power demand resulting from the rule will push electricity bills downward over time even if rates go up. Agency officials also have acknowledged concerns about early action on renewable energy.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has said that while some red and coal-dependent states have voiced concerns publicly, they're ignoring McConnell's calls. She's said the agencies responsible for crafting plans are meeting with the EPA.
"I believe that EPA has designed this plan in a way where we are respecting the current situation in states and their energy mix, designing standards to accommodate reasonable benefits in terms of reducing carbon pollution and what those states can do and leaving tremendous flexibility to the individual states," McCarthy said at an April Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.
The EPA proposal suggests states can reach their individual targets through four "building blocks": Improving power plant efficiency; converting coal-fired power to natural gas; adding renewable electricity; and boosting demand-side energy efficiency. The agency has argued that its interpretation of achieving cuts through the "best system of emissions reduction," as the Clean Air Act states, is by viewing the electricity sector through a broader lens.
But, at the moment, the EPA likely has only clear authority to force states to make adjustments through the first two of those building blocks. McConnell's call on states to withhold a compliance plan, which would be due one year after the rule is finalized and must get approved by the EPA, is a nod to his belief that the federal blueprint the EPA would enforce in the absence of state plans could only require changes at the power plant level.
"Don't be complicit in the administration's attack on the middle class. Think twice before submitting a state plan — which could lock you into federal enforcement and expose you to lawsuits — when the administration is standing on shaky legal ground and when, without your support, it won't be able to demonstrate the capacity to carry out such political extremism," McConnell said in a March op-ed in the Lexington [Ky.] Herald-Leader.
Walker said the proposed rule raises legal questions regarding EPA's authority under the Clean Air Act. Echoing the skepticism of coal-state Democrats, Republicans and industry, he said the agency may lack legal standing to regulate emissions beyond individual power plants. Walker also said the rule as proposed would attempt to "regulate the entire electric generating system."
Those comments point to what will undoubtedly become opponents' legal challenge once the rule is finalized.
"Absent significant and meaningful changes in the final rule, it is difficult to envision how Wisconsin can responsibly construct a state plan that can comply with the requirements of the Clean Power Plan without ignoring our responsibility to ensure safe, affordable and reliable electricity for the people of Wisconsin," Walker said.
Translation: Scott Walker Is the Best Candidate for the American People
As the jobs end and the plants close, the power demand goes down?
Turn off the streetlights?
Homeowners already have cut back to what they need for their households to function--no one is spending more than they need to. At northern latitudes, electric power, more fundamentally, heat, is not optional in winter. You get it or die.
Considering the EPA wants to shut down burning coal and wood for heat, too, that doesn't leave many options.
Putting all the eggs in one basket is something old timers did not do.
Yet our tax dollars are continually funneled to cronies who willingly help drive the dedevelopment [Obama’s Science and Technology Advisor’s term and goal) of the United States.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3294345/posts
Time to kill the EPA before they kill us.
The DC, May 28, 2015: Study Predicts Decades of Global Cooling Ahead
FEMA targets climate change skeptic governors, could withhold funding
Like the IRS, the EPA has unchecked power.
Exactly. Coal, wood, even dried dung, oil and animal fat. In some instances, the furniture...and other items. Solar won’t work here because of the latitude and short winter days. But you can’t tell ‘em anything.
What a farce...It’s NIMBY to the nth power.
Of course add in their greed for money and the control freaks come running.
Humans do adapt, that they can not control.
The EPA’s attack on our energy infrastructure is an act of war by the federal government against the states. Every governor should tell Obunghole and his bureaucrats to pound sand. Let it be known that any EPA clymer that enters the state will be arrested and prosecuted.
Feb 28, 2015: “Gov. Scott Walker promised in his “state of the state” address that he would combat Environmental Protection Agency regulations that jeopardize our state’s well-being — and this week he did exactly that.
Walker and Attorney General Brad Schimel are joining 12 other states in suing the EPA over its proposed Clean Power Plan that drastically reduces U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. This federal regulation forces Wisconsin to cut emissions by 34% — and as recent studies show, it may be the most costly and environmentally meaningless regulation ever conceived.
These cuts would be difficult for any state to swallow, but especially one like Wisconsin, which currently receives more than 80% of its electricity from fossil fuels — the regulation’s primary targets. As an increasing number of these power plants are forced offline, the stability of the energy grid will be unnecessarily tested. In fact, the electricity industry’s own regulator has already warned of the potential for rolling blackouts.
These closures will force a transition to more expensive fuel sources such as wind, solar and other renewables. A recent study from NERA Economic Consulting estimates it will cause household electricity bills to increase 14% every year during the regulation’s implementation — an additional expense many poor and middle-class families simply cannot afford.
Industrial electricity rates will jump even more — more than 40% by 2020. This is particularly troublesome for Wisconsin manufacturers, which provide one in six Wisconsin jobs and make up nearly a fifth of the state’s economy. As the cost of doing business increases, they’ll be forced to cut employee pay and benefits, lay workers off or, worse, send jobs overseas.
In a twist of irony, any outsourced jobs from this regulation may wind up harming the global environment. Those jobs likely will end up in places such as China and India that have significantly weaker environmental standards than America. So the regulation may actually increase emissions worldwide...........................”
Didn't you even read the article? The story puts the focus on Mitch McConnell's efforts to prevent this Obama takeover of your electric bill. You know, Mitch McConnell, the Turtle?
Millions of foreigners crossing the US border isn't the answer.
Mebbe they think we'll spoon with them for warmth...
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.