Posted on 02/11/2016 3:23:42 PM PST by bananaman22
The coal mining industry is in trouble and the Supreme Court holds the industries fate in its hands. Coal has been suffering for years under the dual attack of environmentalists and low natural gas prices. Environmentalists have been pushing utility companies to stop using coal, while low natural gas prices have led many utilities to switch to that cleaner burning and now cheaper fuel as a power source.
In an effort to please environmentalist supporters after his election to a second term, the Obama Administration put in place what might be a death sentence for coal mining east of the Mississippi river when it chose to push forward with a new set of regulations under the auspices of executive action and the EPA.
(Excerpt) Read more at oilprice.com ...
The Enemy Within (Satan)
Natural Gas is cheap now. Will that always be the case?
Michael Bastasch
06/25/2013
President Obama laid out his new plan to tackle global warming Tuesday. In 2008, he made comments about "bankrupting" coal plant owners and making energy prices "skyrocket."
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted," Obama said during a meeting with the San Francisco Chronicle's editorial board.
"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," he added. "Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it - whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers." ..."
************************************************************
From Politico, April, 2012
"If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It's just that it will bankrupt them," Obama said, responding to a question about his cap-and-trade plan. He later added, "Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."
Of course, cap and trade is long dead. But coal-fired power plants are powering down nationwide, and they are blaming the Obama Environmental Protection Agency. The president's critics say proposed greenhouse gas regulations for future power plants are designed to cripple the coal industry.
And just like with another 2008 quote - Energy Secretary Steven Chu's famed call to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe" - Republicans say the Chronicle clip shows what's really in the president's heart, that high electricity prices and the death of coal have always been Obama's goal.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74892.html#ixzz3jAzdi18H
We need to trade Obama for coal. Don’t need him.
Maybe we could trade both Obama & the EPA for coal. Coal serves a good purpose & the other two do not.
It is time to ban/abolish the EPA!!!!
Republics are difficult to maintain and easy to destroy. We had a good run.
I’ll second that emotion.
Regardless what FDRs state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices wanted everybody to believe about the scope of Congresss Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the following. The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate INTRAstate commerce.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added].” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
But in stark contrast to this clarification of Congresss limited Commerce Clause powers, note that state sovereignty-ignoring FDR signed the bill that opened the door to unconstitutional federal government regulatory control over the power grids.
Electrical grid (USA)
So given that the feds have the constitutional authority only to regulate coal under 1.8.3 when buyer and seller are domiciled in different states, I think that the Constitution has largely decided this issue in favor of the coal industry. That is, unless the corrupt judicial branch is once again trying to find an excuse to unconstitutionally expand the federal governments powers from the bench.
Also note that neither have the states ever expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate intrastate environmental protection issues, although doing so might be a good idea, the corrupt feds unconstitutionally regulating intrastate environmental issues in the name of protection in the meanwhile.
War On Coal Bump
You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.
Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.
Global Warming on Free Republic here, here, and here
Nope! Our electric Utility just got a coal plant going and the whole reason for it is stable rates into the future. Natural gas oil fuel will all go up but coal will remain stable.
Oh the timing and irony of Scalia’s death 2 weeks after this is quite remarkable!
Oh but I’m sure it’s a vast right wing conspiracy theory like the Fast and the Furious and the Benghazi.
They did not even do an autopsy. If they got nothing to hide, then why not do an autopsy?
The court will be set up just right for the Leftist. What timing!
BTTT
This may be the reason Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his head.
Obama’s EPA plan to reduce coal by the following:
“Western coal production, which primarily includes the Wyoming Powder River basin, is 214 million tons (34%) lower by 2024...”
“The Interior region, which primarily includes coal from the Illinois and Gulf-lignite basins, is 103 million tons (45%) lower by 2024...’
“Appalachian coal production in the Base Policy case is 46 million tons (19%) lower by 2024 compared to the Reference case, “
There is a plan to increase again by 2040 tho. Let’s just hope Obama term is over and new leadership within the DOE, EPA, and every other agency is replaced in the new election before this ever goes to SCOTUS again.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=21592
Starting to make me wonder now.
This was taken from a government report regarding energy use - all of it expecting that SCOTUS passed the new EPP CPP. But, they did not.” Anyway, this is what they had to say about Natural Gas future usage:
“Finally, the discussion of energy security would not be complete without addressing the demand side.
While issues of energy conservation, energy efficiency, and demand reduction are largely out of scope for
this installment of the QER, they are nonetheless relevant for energy security. Figure 4-1 shows U.S. energy demand as projected by EIA through 2040. These projections indicate that U.S. liquid fuel demand is expected
to grow through 2018 and then begin a slow decline for the remainder of the period. In contrast, EIA projects
a steady growth through the projection period for both electricity and natural gas. However, it should be
noted that EIA’s projections do not consider regulations that are not yet finalized. Thus, EIA projections do not
account for electricity supply and demand changes likely to occur from implementation of the Environmental
Protection Agency’s “Clean Power Plan,†because it has not yet been finalized.
http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/04/f22/QER-ALL%20FINAL_0.pdf
(sections 4-3)
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.