EPA’s New Proposed Regulations to Restrict Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Based Electric Generation

By Alan Carlin, former EPA researcher carlineconomics.com

June 2nd was the day when EPA unveiled its regulations intended to solve a minor or more likely non-existent problem by placing restrictive government regulations intended to bias the electric supply business away from seeking the lowest cost source of energy (often coal) at the expense of all American ratepayers, but particularly lower and middle income Americans.

As outlined on this blog for over four years there is no reason for EPA or any other government agency to impose such controls. They will have no measurable effects on anything other than the US economy.

What will happen as a result is quite predictable: Greatly increased rates for electric power, decreased availability of the electric power so vital to our way of life, decreased reliability of the electric grid, a lower standard of living, decreased competitiveness of US products in world markets since most countries do not have such regulations, and Communist-style central control of the electric generating industry by a Washington-based bureaucracy with no understanding of the industry.

Fortunately, there is an election coming up this fall where voters can express their views on the Obama Administration’s proposal to take effective control over the electric power industry despite their less than sterling performance on health care and veterans’ medical needs. Apparently nothing short of an electoral defeat will prevent the Administration from pursuing its green energy ideology/religion. What is required is a Republican majority in the US Senate if these regulations are to be stopped. Electing Democrats who claim they are opposed to the new EPA regulations will do very little if anything to prevent them from coming into effect since the Democrats would still control the US Senate and would be able to circumvent any effort to kill the EPA regulations.

It is important to note that the EPA proposals are not only attempts to circumvent Congress and the provisions of the Clean Air Act but also the separation of powers enshrined in the US Constitution. The separation of powers were built into the Constitution for a reason–to keep ideologues of any persuasion from being able to impose their views on the nation merely by controlling one branch of Government. The new EPA proposed rules are not based on any act of Congress but rather on an outrageous rewriting of the Clean Air Act by EPA on the basis of green ideology with all its bad science, bad economics and bad law. This is a direct outcome of the Endangerment Finding I opposed in 2009–and unfortunately about the worst possible outcome. Unless voters act this fall it may too late to avoid this outcome, which will directly affect the economic well being of all Americans with no benefits whatever except for those that will profit from it, like windmill and solar manufacturers.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in EPA, Obamas War on Energy. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to EPA’s New Proposed Regulations to Restrict Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Based Electric Generation

  1. S.C. Schwarz says:

    How would a win in the Senate change anything as long as Obama is president?

    Sorry, it’s already too late.

    Encourage your grandchildren to learn Mandarin. The Chinese will need servants when they take over.

  2. Keitho says:

    I agree with the non problem part of your posting. My observation is that this only pushes electricity generation companies towards gas which is cheaper anyway. Surely in the USA moving away from coal to gas will be an entirely economic decision that does not require any regulations from Obama?

    The coal miners must have a ready market for their output in China and Europe where they have been unable or unwilling to exploit natural gas deposits. It seems that jobs in those states are not greatly threatened.

    The cynic in me is thinking that Obama has just done a few political gymnastics to get out in front of the gas revolution and so pretend to be penalising coal for environmental and public health reasons. Quite pathetic really.

  3. j ferguson says:

    It would be reassuring for someone to describe how this madness can be put to rest. If there is a change in control of the Senate, what will they be able to do, specifically? Can Carbon Dioxide be officially taken off the pollutants list?

    Is Oz ahead of us in throttling this nonsense?

  4. Sasha says:

    Obama said this in 2008:

    “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States of America.”

    In a new report for The Heritage Foundation, senior legal policy analyst Elizabeth Slattery and legal fellow Andrew Kloster write, “Abusive, unlawful, and even potentially unconstitutional unilateral action has been a hallmark of the Obama Administration.”

    Obama has continually pledged during his second term, that he will be “governing unilaterally, by executive order and by regulatory mandate,” warned a Washington Times reporter –– thus his weapons of warfare are his “pen and phone.” Forget about the Constitution.

  5. mjmsprt40 says:

    It may take both Congress and the SCOTUS working together to reign in a renegade Executive branch. As long as the President– whoever he may happen to be– believes he can pass laws by executive order, bypassing Congress entirely, we are closer to dictatorship every day.

  6. EE says:

    “My observation is that this only pushes electricity generation companies towards gas” Obviously this person has no clue with regards to what it takes to convert an existing power plant or build a new one for that matter. Do a little research then get back to us.

  7. Cathy says:

    Dark. In so many senses of the word.

  8. eo says:

    There is a lag time between the regulation and its impact on the consumer. The impact will not be felt this coming fall election. Hopefully by 2016 election the impacts would be part of the new normal and will not be an election issue anymore.

  9. Alan the Brit says:

    “What will happen as a result is quite predictable: Greatly increased rates for electric power, decreased availability of the electric power so vital to our way of life, decreased reliability of the electric grid, a lower standard of living, decreased competitiveness of US products in world markets since most countries do not have such regulations, and Communist-style central control of the electric generating industry by a Washington-based bureaucracy with no understanding of the industry.”

    Sounds like they will be perfect for the job, that is to screw the economy over! It reminds me of British situation comedy classic “Yes Minister”, all about the machinations of the British Civil Service & its quirkiness & heavily bureaucratic paper-chasing antics, especially when making an appointment for a Guvment position of great importance & influence, they always make sure the appointee has absolutely no experience in the field they are appointed to!!! Good luck, America!

  10. philjourdan says:

    What separation of powers? Obama has shown with his latest that he has no use for congress. Emperors never do.

  11. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
    “…there is no reason for EPA or any other government agency to impose such controls. They will have no measurable effects on anything other than the US economy.”
    Bottom line is that the proposed cure is far worse than the assumed disease.

  12. Claude Harvey says:

    Folks might wish to take a look at Spain and Portugal, the self-proclaimed “Solar Capitals of the World”, to see how all this comes out, particularly the “jobs created” part. They might also note that while Obama plunges our country into the energy abyss, Germany, “The Green Mouth of the World”, quietly increases its dependence on lignite (nasty stuff) for electric power generation. According to Bloomberg, 45% of Germany’s power came from lignite last year and new coal plants are being built. In the meantime, German households are facing a 20% increase this year in their “renewable energy tax”.

  13. mogamboguru says:

    Folks, please stop discussing CO2, because here’s nothing to CO2 worth discussing at all. In this case, CO2 is a mere tool to justify cutting the use of coal for producing electricity and to support the use of shale gas in order to increase the profits of the gas-producers, like Al Quaeda was used as a tool by the State Department to have a reason to invade any country owning materials of interes for the US-economy at will. The reasons for the Global Warming-scam are neither scientific nor emotional, but are purely economical. s long a you keep discussing CO2, you keep playing by the rules of those who invented Global Warming. You need to transcend CO2, to cut to the very core of the discussion. And the core of the whole discussion is pure, cold, unmitigated greed and the will to fleece people no matter what.

  14. John M says:

    This will never happen. Obama just wants to look ‘godly’ in the eyes of his green disciples as he exits stage ‘far’ left. The post Obama reality will strike hard well before the 30% reduction is reached.

  15. Ed Reid says:

    The combination of coal restrictions and limiting oil and gas E&P on “federal” land will drive up natural gas demand while restricting supply, ultimately driving up gas prices as well. Never forget that the ultimate solution to the “carbon pollution” problem is zero “carbon pollution”. Coal is merely first in line.

  16. Power Engineer says:

    A new coal plant costs more than a gas plant but to replace an existing coal plant with a new gas plant is a net increase in costs of 4 cents per kWh.

    Meanwhile Germany is building 28 new coal plants. And their solar will cost $500M to fix the problem of dropping off the grid during a system disturbance. (Issue here too).

  17. Keith Willshaw says:

    Keitho said:

    > I agree with the non problem part of your posting. My observation is that this only pushes
    > electricity generation companies towards gas which is cheaper anyway. Surely in the USA
    > moving away from coal to gas will be an entirely economic decision that does not require
    > any regulations from Obama?

    Problem is this policy will
    1) increase demand for gas likely raising gas wholesale prices
    2) Remove competition which will hardly encourage gas producers to lower prices
    3) Require capital investment in new gas plants which will also raise prices

    Note that CO2 emission controls will also be imposed on gas fired plants under this legislation so don’t imagine it will stop with coal.

    > The coal miners must have a ready market for their output in China and Europe where they
    > have been unable or unwilling to exploit natural gas deposits. It seems that jobs in those
    > states are not greatly threatened.

    Trouble is production of coal from countries with lower safety standards and/or wages is likely to undercut US suppliers. Much of China’s coal comes from Russia and Australia while European countries like Poland and Germany are using indigenous reserves

    Truth is the miners and state officials in West Virginia, Ohio, Colorado etc are VERY concerned about the effects on their industry.

  18. carbon bigfoot says:

    S.C. Schwartz–” Sorry, its already too late”. NEVER, NEVER GIVE UP.
    Short of an armed confrontation and a civil war, lets all drive to DC and snarl all access by abandoning our vehicles on all major highways. Hell we won’t be able to buy fuel so let’s keep the politicians and bureaucrats from further stifling our freedoms and livelihoods.

  19. Pamela Gray says:

    If there is one class of people being pummeled into the ground by an ever heavier hammer, it is the bread and butter people. They clerk, run errands, change your oil and fluids, pick up your garbage, sweep your schools, figure out a way to open a small business, flip your hamburgers, and in general work longer total hours or work for pay that prevents them from taking a vacation other than in their backyard. And what is worse? They can’t find .22 ammo, they can’t fish without wading through regulations, they can’t fill aging cars without deciding what food they will not purchase this week, and they are getting damned tired of it. The last time they were faced with this issue they got a free phone and cough-cough free health care promise. In exchange it is ever more plain they got the shaft. But that is not the worst of it. They are now us too. Never before in my near 60 years of life have I witnessed a president more hell bent on destroying his own country.

    We impeached a president for lying to congress about having an extramarital affair. Have we no stomach for impeaching a president for much worse?

  20. Colin Porter says:

    Well done Obama and the EPA. Without their interference, we in the UK would have been loosing all of our high power demand industries to the US. With idiots on both sides of the pond in control of energy policy, we at least stand a chance of retaining some of our these industries.

  21. observa says:

    Well if Obama wants a 30% cut in emissions all he has to do is decree existing power stations cut their output by 30% and presto! There’s no time like the present for a President of such real conviction.

  22. > What will happen as a result is quite predictable: Greatly increased rates for electric power

    Its a prediction, but its a touch vague. When exactly will these increases occur? How large will they be? Can you be at all quantitative?

  23. johnmarshall says:

    Silly; stupid; damn stupid; then the EPA.
    Get rid of Obama and the EPA if you wish to live a life. This crap will shut America down.

  24. MarkW says:

    This move will increase energy costs and as a result more companies will move operations overseas.
    In the meantime, the useful idiots will continue to blame greedy CEOs for shipping “our” jobs overseas.

  25. ffohnad says:

    Look on the bright side…the price of coal should go down significantly. I just installed a coal burning potbelly stove and will be doing my part to stave off the next ice age with additional carbon dioxide.

  26. MarkW says:

    Keitho says:
    June 3, 2014 at 3:25 am

    The cost differential between coal and gas explains why no new coal plants have been started recently.
    However building new gas plants in order to replace working coal plants has huge costs all by itself. In addition as demand for gas goes up and the demand for coal goes down, will soon result in coal being cheaper than gas, but Obama’s regulations will still require the elimination of coal plants.

  27. JJM Gommers says:

    ffohnad ; your low coal price will last for a long period of time. Once the program is in action and the global temperature starts to drop they will say: Look, it works, we can!

  28. fhhaynie says:

    A republican majority in the Senate is a good start. Congress holds the purse strings and passes laws. Some laws and executive actions are unconstitutional. I think that EPA’s and the administrations actions are such. There will be more challanges in the courts and enforcing these regulations will be delayed and debated. Hopefully, scientific and economic truths will come out of the process.

  29. GW says:

    Pamela Gray says:
    June 3, 2014 at 5:16 am

    “We impeached a president for lying to congress about having an extramarital affair. Have we no stomach for impeaching a president for much worse?”

    He was not impeached for lying to Congress – He was impeached for the crime of perjury committed during official, legal testimony (deposition under oath) in the civil (sexual harassment) lawsuit against him by Paula Jones. The fact that he was lying about an extramarital affair (Monica Lewinsky) in a sexual harassment lawsuit is a very relevant matter which would undoubtedly affect the outcome of the lawsuit.

    The charges against Bill Clinton were lying to a federal grand jury in the case (the civil lawsuit – not to Congress) and obstructing justice in the lawsuit.

    I only point this out to you, and others, because I hate it the way the media and leftists portray the whole scandal as a right-wing, puritan, anti-sex persecution of Bill Clinton when it was indeed about a very serious crime and breech of integrity. The Federal Government takes perjury very seriously and little people like you and me go to jail for quite a while for committing perjury.

    As I recall, Martha Stewart went to jail for insider trading – but it wasn’t REALLY insider trading since they had insufficient evidence to prove it, BUT they were able to get her for LYING ABOUT IT to the investigators ! Oh and then there was that guy who supposedly outed a CIA operative a few years ago, even though she hadn’t been on an undercover op in years and was working in Washington; remember ? Dick Cheney’s advisor, Scooter Libby, went to jail for it – but not for outing her (which he didn’t – and wasn’t even a crime since she no longer met the requirements) but for supposedly LYING TO THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR about it.

    Perhaps if Congress, the Senate specifically, had back then the proper backbone and sense of justice to convict him of the perjury he obviously committed and removed him from office, the present Congress might have the stomach for it. Of course, even if they did, they’d all be called rascists for doing so, and the attempt would collapse like last time.

  30. PRD says:

    I work for a major electricity generating company. We have assets ranging from small utility gas boilers (<100 MW) up to 1300 MW turbine coal fired boilers, nuclear gen, and natural gas fired turbines with and without heat recovery steam generators.

    In those sets are some of the absolutely lowest cost lignite fired generators in the country (with NOx and SOx controls) and one of the most modern and efficient HRSG's in the nation.

    Natural gas prices must be at an unprofitably low price for the natural gas companies to bring the cost/MW for our most efficient HRSG to beat the price/MW of most coal fired power plants.

    As demand increases and more solar and wind comes on line, the gas turbines and HRSG's will be needed more. However! Responding to rapid load changes causes metallurgical stresses on this equipment that takes time and ratepayers money to fix.

    Trying to swing coal/lignite in a similar manner is even more expensive to the ratepayers.

    Enjoy your cake, liberal voters.

  31. Karl Koehler says:

    I agree the President should be impeached. Not for this manuever in particular, but for the litany of constitutional abuses he has wrought; most notably via the IRS. In my view, it is racist not to do so.

  32. Tom J says:

    eo
    June 3, 2014 at 4:13 am
    says:
    ‘There is a lag time between the regulation and its impact on the consumer.’

    In all due respect, that’s not the case. In Illinois electric rates are set to go up 20-30% in June of this year (in other words; right now). Moreover, I believe kWh prices are set at auction in advance in anticipation of future conditions.

  33. policycritic says:

    Everyone, this is a copy of the Proposed NCEE Comments on Draft Technical Support Document For Endangerment Analysis for Greenhouse Gas Emissions under the Clean Air Act, based on the TSD Draft of March 9, 2009.

    The NCEE is the National center for Environmental Economics, a division within the EPA. I don’t know if the author of this post, Alan Carlin, was a member of this organization and therefore contributed to this ‘comments document’, but the Executive Summary alone is a must read. (This is the kind of info that William Connolley (sp?) would have banished from Wikipedia.)

    If you do nothing else, read the double-spaced four-page exec summary. Mr. Carlin, if you were part of this: kudos.

  34. c1ue says:

    I think the notion that natural gas is automatically cheaper than coal is false.
    For typical cases, this is true right now. The problem is – as we’ve seen this past winter – is that there are operational differences between coal and natural gas. Short spikes in demand for coal can be smoothed out by stockpiles, but short spikes in demand for natural gas causes spot prices to shoot up dramatically.
    And who profits from such spikes? The banksters.
    The playbook engineered by Enron in California is being rolled out the the entire US.
    Thanks, Mr. President.

  35. jai mitchell says:

    why did they choose 2005 as the starting point for targeted reductions?

    what is the current trajectory of emissions reductions as older plants reach their end of useful life?

    this image shows that we are already 15% along on the path of the 30% target by 2030.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/usa_co2_q1_june2012_eia.png

    It seems to me that these “regulations” are simply what the industry would have done anyways.

  36. Resourceguy says:

    You don’t really think this is an issue with a trace gas (0.04 percent) like CO2 do you? That is a means to an end for the PR policy machine to eliminate coal plants, not CO2. It does not bother the PR campaigners that science, peer review, and science policy are being dragged through the mud to reach the party plank either.

  37. James at 48 says:

    The First World nations were the imperialist oppressors for long years, now we must atone. If we are to drive the world to be clean and green we must start at home. No pain level is too much, given the purity of our goal. /sarc

    But there is much to what I just wrote, that is really core to the mentality at work.

  38. Tom J says:

    ‘..,Obama Administration’s proposal to take effective control over the electric power industry despite their less than sterling performance on health care and veterans’ medical needs.’

    C’mon, less than sterling performance on health care and veterans’ medical needs? I recognize a certain need for brevity but aren’t you cutting this guy an awful lotta slack? What about Fast and Furious, NSA monitoring of Washington DC phone calls (oh, we thought it was Egypt), Secret Service cavorting with hookers, Solyndra, IRS targeting, Contempt of Congress charges on Holder, scandal searching investigations into the Electric Reliability Council, monitoring of AP, recess appointments, apparent thumbscrews to Chief Justice Roberts, FBI investigation into D’Nesh D’Souza (while leaving Corzine alone), the continued incarceration of the patsy filmmaker for the trumped up incitement of riots in Egypt and Libya, the Syrian line in the sand, Van Jones, Benghazi?

  39. Keitho says:

    Thanks for the responses EE, Keith Willshaw, MarkW,PRD. They have been a big help in increasing my understanding as have so many other contributions here. I was just working from the fact that there has already been a big swing towards NG for economic reasons and I thought it would go on regardless of what Obama decrees. I do understand the supply/demand relationship regarding gas and coal prices however and was going to say that when coal becomes cheaper again there would be a consumer revolt.

    Who is William Connolly? He seems to add nothing to the thread at all apart from sounding grumpy.

  40. Political Junkie says:

    William Connolley, 6:29 a.m.

    It’s a fair question to ask a commenter to justify and quantify his comments. I’m all for fact-based reasoning.

    Now, would you please give us an explanation in writing for each of the thousands of edits, modifications and rejections you orchestrated at Wikipedia.

    Thank you.

  41. Resourceguy says:

    The next steps will be involve subsidies for utility bills on a much wider scale to go with free health care (Medicaid), free cell phones, no contribution to the income tax base, and food stamp coverage already at one third of the population.

  42. more soylent green! says:

    What would a change in control in the Senate accomplish? There are plenty of Democrats who oppose these regulations, but there are still plenty of Washington Republicans who are in the AGW camp as well. But a change in control would put Harry Reid out of the picture and probably allow some public debate and actual votes on items of importance. It’s possible a 60-vote, veto-proof coalition could work with the House and get a bill passed into law.

    But then somebody would have to force Obama to follow the law.

  43. Jim G says:

    GW says:
    June 3, 2014 at 7:04 am

    And the left wing media has made a hero out of Clinton, a man with no class, no character and no honor who throngs of leftists adore, and his wife, of very similar ilk, into a long suffering heroine deserving of consideration for the office of president. The real sadness is all of the folks who buy this hogwash.

  44. Alan Robertson says:

    If the idea behind the Obama plan was to reduce actual pollution, then team Obama just scored an “own goal”, because the most obvious result is that more manufacturing will move overseas to nations without proper environmental controls on emissions. If the US Greens want to reduce worldwide pollution (and help the US economy,) then an import surtax should immediately be placed on all import goods which were manufactured in a manner which does not comply with EPA regulations.

  45. Alan Robertson says:

    Jim G says:
    June 3, 2014 at 8:43 am

    GW says:
    June 3, 2014 at 7:04 am

    And the left wing media has made a hero out of Clinton, a man with no class, no character and no honor who throngs of leftists adore, and his wife, of very similar ilk, into a long suffering heroine deserving of consideration for the office of president. The real sadness is all of the folks who buy this hogwash will blissfully support, defend and vote for Hillary, no matter what.
    __________________
    fixed

  46. Resourceguy says:

    This is why Obama never gave up on the carbon tax legislation…..

    http://www.pv-tech.org/news/us53_trillion_energy_investment_needed_to_head_off_climate_change_iea

  47. oeman50 says:

    ” jai mitchell says:
    June 3, 2014 at 7:59 am

    why did they choose 2005 as the starting point for targeted reductions?”
    ————————————————————————————–
    Actually, they did not. This is pretty confusing because of how it is presented. We just figured it out this morning. If you look at the state-by-state targets, they are actually based on 2012 annual data, not 2005. They are simply comparing the emissions they plan to reduce to the 2005 data to make it seem larger. PR, pure and simple.

  48. David L. Hagen says:

    GW
    The Grand Jury of the Senate in turn perjured itself. Having taken the oath to do “Impartial Justice”, 100% of the party of the defense voted Not Guilty, and 93% of the party of the prosecution voted “Guilty”.
    Effectively we now cannot impeach a president unless one party holds lose to 67% of the Senate.
    We need to amend the constitution to require 60% or less rather than 67% to enable impeachment and accommodate the Senate’s perjuring of itself.

  49. albertalad says:

    Here in Alberta, Canada we have 70% of the natural gas nation wide. Factually speaking, Obama’s EPA regulations are magical for producers like us. Moreover, gas must be delivered to market through, you guessed it, pipelines. Now, any known increase is gas usage will drive up the cost of gas sure as breathing, which is going to be the most likely replacement product should coal be reduced or eliminated. That is well accepted knowledge we can all agree are possible consequences, but what is not discussed here is any increase in the cost of energy will drive up every single consumer good and service across the board. Here we yet have no idea of the actual cost of these regulations, and this will have a cascading effect on Canada, the United States, and the world itself. There is no escaping the consequences of Obama’s pen on this one. Unless government subsidizes the poor or borderline poor they will suffer the most, as will the middle class everyone claims they care about. And that’s only the beginning. Come winter, get ready for big increase in gas prices and all other energy prices. This is the power of Obama’s pen.

  50. James Bull says:

    Maybe the nasty dirty coal power companies supplying power to Washington should stop for a day or two so that the “ruling classes” (public servants) could get all their power from green sources.

    James Bull

  51. earwig42 says:

    I have to buy a spittoon to sit next to my desk. Every time I see a post by William Connoley, I just have to spit.

  52. MikeUK says:

    I believe that shale gas is very plentiful in the US, so much so that we in Europe hope that some can be exported to us, we badly need it. Burning more of it in electricity generation seems unlikely to me to have much effect on price.

    At the moment baseload electricity comes from coal and nuclear, run almost continuously (just think of the pain and cost of switching them off and back on again). Peak demand comes from natural gas. When a coal plant comes to the end of its life it can be replaced by a natural gas one, running continuously for baseload.

    This may not be as bad as it looks at first sight, except for some of the coal miners.

  53. Corey S. says:

    “”William Connolley says:
    June 3, 2014 at 6:29 am
    > What will happen as a result is quite predictable: Greatly increased rates for electric power

    Its a prediction, but its a touch vague. When exactly will these increases occur? How large will they be? Can you be at all quantitative?””

    From the EPA.

    “The proposed guidelines have important energy market implications. Under Option 1, average nationwide retail electricity prices are projected to increase by roughly 6 to 7 percent in 2020 relative to the base case, and by roughly 3 percent in 2030 (contiguous U.S.). Average monthly electricity bills are anticipated to increase by roughly 3 percent in 2020, but decline by approximately 9 percent by 2030. This is a result of the increasing penetration of demand-side programs that more than offset increased prices to end users by their expected savings from reduced electricity use.” (p. 558)

    Compliance costs, which will be passed on to consumers:

    “The EPA projects that the annual incremental compliance cost of Option 1 is estimated to be between $5.5 and $7.5 billion in 2020 and between $7.3 and $8.8 billion (2011$) in 2030, including the costs associated with monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping (MRR). The incremental compliance cost of Option 2 is estimated to be between $4.3 and $5.5 billion in 2020, including MRR costs. In 2025, the estimated compliance cost of Option 2 is estimated to be between $4.5 and $5.5 billion (with the assumed levels of end-use energy efficiency).”(p. 560)

    “Average electric power sector-delivered natural gas prices are projected to increase by roughly 9 to 12 percent in 2020 in Option 1, with negligible changes by 2030. Under Option 2, electric power sector natural gas prices are projected to increase by roughly 8 percent in 2020, on an average nationwide basis, and increase by 1 percent or less in 2025. … Retail electricity prices are projected to increase 6 to 7 percent under Option 1 and increase by roughly 4 percent under Option 2, both in 2020 and on an average basis across the contiguous U.S. By 2030 under Option 1, electricity prices are projected to increase by about 3 percent.”(p. 561-2)

    http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-05/documents/20140602proposal-cleanpowerplan.pdf

    So, according to the EPA’s own assessment, prices will go up, not down. The EPA administrator lied when she said they would go down. Add the increase in the price of energy to the cost passed to consumers for compliance and it is over the percentage that they have in their proposal.

  54. Louis says:

    “Fortunately, there is an election coming up this fall”

    What baffles me is why so many Democratic politicians are willing to stand by and allow this President to destroy their political future. I guess they’re having a hard time trying to find adequate words to oppose him without sounding like hypocrites. Having lived by climate change, they are now being forced to die by climate change.

  55. Neil Jordan says:

    Interview on today’s EENEWS re legal defensibility of new climate rule. Texas might be the most impacted: “But for a state like Texas that because of the growth of its economy has actually seen greenhouse gas emissions increase over the years despite more efficiency, it’s actually a significant setback for them. I think we’re going to see Texas, as is not uncommon, be the state most adversely impacted by this.” The interview concludes with “unprecedented”:
    http://www.eenews.net/tv/videos/1834/transcript
    [excerpts]
    During today’s OnPoint, Roger Martella, a partner at Sidley Austin and a former general counsel at U.S. EPA, discusses the sections of the rule that could face legal challenges and weighs in on the agency’s strategy in using a rate-based approach. He also talks about EPA’s method for assigning individual state targets.
    [...]
    This is probably the most highly anticipated announcement from the Obama EPA, and I think actually one of the best-kept secrets as well, because we didn’t really know about it until yesterday morning the details, and I think that there’s two stories going on here, as is usual.
    [...]
    EPA’s applied a very complicated kind of four-factor formula, and from what we can tell, what it seems to do is bias against those states that have existing coal facilities but the potential for natural gas renewables and nuclear. And what EPA seems to be doing is saying when you have the potential for other types of energy, we’re going to put the pressure on you to really phase out your coal and take advantage of that capacity that you have in those states.
    [...]
    But for a state like Texas that because of the growth of its economy has actually seen greenhouse gas emissions increase over the years despite more efficiency, it’s actually a significant setback for them. I think we’re going to see Texas, as is not uncommon, be the state most adversely impacted by this. I’m hearing numbers of 52 to 60 percent reductions in greenhouse gases by 2030 because of the issue we talked about with the coal and the gas, as well as the base-line effect on it.
    [...]
    I also think from a political perspective mass-based sounds more like cap and trade, and I have to imagine a couple months ahead of the midterm elections nobody wanted to be talking about cap and trade today.
    [...]
    I think the winners today are California and the RGGI states. . . It’s probably going to be pretty tempting to say, “Well, maybe we should work with these guys, who’ve already figured it out.”
    [...]
    I think that for some states like Texas they’re going to say that this was going to be definitely impossible to me shutting down the growth that they’re already achieving. . .And so EPA’s not even limiting itself to existing technologies. It’s saying we’re going to look at the full picture of how we can reduce greenhouse gas reductions beyond the fence line and across the entire energy infrastructure of a given state.
    [...]
    Monica Trauzzi: So let’s talk about the legal aspects. This EPA has demonstrated the ability to
    craft rules, many would say, that are court-ready. This rule will most definitely be challenged
    in court. How legally defensible is it?

    Roger Martella: Well, one of the things that surprised me, first of all, is that it will be challenged sooner than I might’ve predicted. We kept hearing the administrator refer to this as guidelines, but when you actually read it, it is a rule. It’s a rule with mandatory obligations, which means when it is finalized in 2015 it will be capable of being challenged.
    [...]
    For existing sources for coal facilities, they say, “We’ll look at coal, gas, nuclear, renewable energy and end-use efficiency. And, by the way, we’re not only going to hold coal operators liable; we’re going to allow states to hold everyone else liable, including renewable energy providers, under the standard as well.” So this is a much, much broader interpretation than even the new source rule was.
    [...]
    EPA’s provided for a 120-day comment period, which I was happy to see. Traditionally they provide for less and you have to request extensions, so I appreciate the fact that they just came out and said, “We’re going to give you 120 days.” And we know that this is Mission Number One for the agency. They’re going to probably have an unprecedented amount of comments filed. I’m sure they’re gearing up or preparing for that, and if there’s one priority for the agency, it’s to meet the president’s deadline of next June. No doubt Congress will throw some bumps in the road, and I think the midterm elections could play some impact in terms of how effective those bumps would be. I don’t anticipate anything’s going to stop them until after, perhaps, the midterm elections, but there’s probably going to be a fair amount of versight on this that could slow some things down.
    [...]
    Monica Trauzzi: Any surprises as you read through the proposed rule?

    Roger Martella: I think the big surprises to me were saying it’s a rule, not a guidance, which will subject it to legal challenges sooner. The portfolio standard provisions would say that we will allow states to hold the nonregulated industry responsible, so industries beyond coal and
    natural gas can be held legally liable for compliance with this rule and the state-specific standards, the fact that they’re setting state standards based not just on coal emissions or fossil-fuel emissions but based on the broader renewable portfolio and end-use energy
    efficiency. That’s really unprecedented.

  56. Chad Wozniak says:

    @Louis -

    Don’t forget that the Democrats plan to secure their future by repealing the First Amendment – 41 Democrat senators have introduced a proposed constitutional amendment to do just that, and replace it with government control over political speech (which is the only speech that really matters). With no chance to campaign against them, they can’t be voted out.

    The Democrat Party has now openly declared itself for tyranny, for ending constitutional rights and for reducing the country to a tiny elite of billionaires ruling over a nation of impoverished serfs.

    At this point I would be supportive of a coup to forcibly remove Obama, Harry Reid, the other 40 senators and the Democrats in the House of Representatives who support this proposed amendment, from office. The election system is so rigged and overwhelmed with (Democrat) voter fraud that it can’t be relied on to produce an honest result. There were at least 3 million duplicate votes in the 2012 election, plus at least 1 million illegal aliens who voted, by some estimates.

  57. mwhite says:

    Nothing like a blackout to concentrate a political mind.

  58. stan stendera says:

    I was under the impression Winston (that’s no trick zone’s name for WC) was banned at WUWT. If not why not Anthony??

  59. Curious George says:

    EPA is clearly in the pockets of Big Oil and Big Gas.

  60. philjourdan says:

    @GW – thank you for stating the real case about the Clinton Impeachment. You are correct. So many want to make it about his sex life. it never was.

  61. Pamela Gray says: June 3, 2014 at 5:16 am
    “……………..We impeached a president for lying to congress about having an extramarital affair. Have we no stomach for impeaching a president for much worse?”
    ************************************
    Ms. Pamela,

    I agree with all of your post, except I have a quibble about the quote above. The Bubba was NOT impeached because he had an extramarital affair or lied to Congress. He was impeached because he perjured himself under oath during a trial. The meme that it was “all about sex” was a distraction to shift focus from his actual crime. In fact, he was fined by a Federal court for perjury, his Arkansas law license was suspended for perjury, and he was dis-barred from the Supreme Court for perjury.

    The Republicans were totally incompetent fools during the impeachment and trial. First they let the Bubba and Mrs. Bubba shift the focus from the actual crime. (Remember the vast right wing conspiracy?) Second, the Republicans thought people cared about the Bubba’s victims. All of the women, from the happy sword swallowers like Jennifer Flowers (and the tabloids also named Barbara Streisand, at any rate the Bubba has been quoted as saying that there were “hundreds”) to the ones he waived the Lilly at (Paula Jones), to the ones he humped like a demented blood hound (Monica Lewinsky), to the ones he sexually assaulted (Kathleen Willey), and worse (Juanita Broderick), were all liberal Democrat women. Nobody on the left cared what those women were used for. In fact, Teddy Kennedy proved that an Important Democrat could kill one and face almost no consequence. (Poor Mary Jo Kopechne was said to be a “groupie”; a member of the “Boiler Room Girls” who were handed around for the amusement of the Kennedy boys.)

    Anyway, the rest of your post is spot on.

    Regards,
    Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

  62. herkimer says:

    It appears to me that the Administration is mixing two complete separate topics, namely Air pollution control and climate change control. Air Pollution control involves the control of known pollutants to minimize their negative influence on our health. Carbon dioxide is not one of these pollutants despite what EPA wrongly claims. So reducing carbon dioxide will not improve our health to any measurable degree. No one disputes lowering the emission of pollutants if we can afford the cost but there are also economic and practical limits to this.

    Climate change is caused by many factors including greenhouse gases to some degree. Reducing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide may affect climate but the degree of this is currently quite uncertain and to base any significant and long term public energy or environmental policy on this is simply wrong and premature.

    The Administration is wrongly claiming that we must reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants in order to improve our health, but the true reason is they want this in order to reduce global warming and climate change. However their global warming science is deeply flawed as carbon dioxide levels are rising but temperatures are not, completely opposite of what they claim .Since the science is flawed, to formulate power plant closures in order to reduce carbon dioxide is simply wrong and extremely risky as this may all be wasted money and may do nothing for global temperatures at all but put the country at economic risk due high costs. This has already been the experience in other parts of the globe.

  63. jai mitchell says:

    I seriously doubt that Texas is going to have much trouble meeting its targets.

    http://d1bb041l1ipbcm.cloudfront.net/user_media/diveimage/UD-ERCOT-first-04-24-2014.jpg

  64. Jaakko Kateenkorva says:

    Perhaps Obama’s greatest gift to Americans will be the birth of a completely new political party for Americans to choose from. Competition is a good thing.

  65. MattN says:

    My power company uses coal to generate over 90% of their electricity (per their website). I already had a $300 electricity bill this past February.

  66. policycritic says:

    jonova commenter TonyfromOz had an interesting comment about Obama’s proposal.

    Oh, ho ho ho. You just have to laugh here, and here I mean out of control, rolling around the floor laughing, pain inducing laughter.

    This is so far out there in the realms of ridiculous statements, and is in fact IMPOSSIBLE to achieve: (My bolding)

    EPA Power-Plant Proposal Will Seek 30% Carbon Dioxide Emissions Cut by 2030

    Note how this is not whole of Country wide reduction in emissions, just being aimed very deliberately at the electrical power generating sector, coal fired power as the main target, with Natural Gas Fired power as a secondary target.

    So then, let’s look at that 30% reduction figure, based on 2005 data. (for just the electricity generating sector)

    The total CO2 emissions from that sector in 2005 were 3.8 Billion Tons.
    The total CO2 emissions from that sector NOW, in 2014 are 3.7 Billion tons.

    That’s a current reduction of 3.6% ….. in nine years.

    He now has 16 years until 2030, the date for this reduction.

    Since 2005 coal fired plants have been closing, nearly all of them time expired and of tiny to small Nameplate Capacity. The total power ACTUALLY DELIVERED from those closed plants has been replaced, in MORE than its totality by new Natural Gas Fired plants, so it’s been a sideways move to another CO2 emitting power generation source. Natural Gas emits less CO2 so that accounts for the 3.6% overall reduction.

    So, in effect, right now, they have to stop ALL new power generation plants which emit CO2, because, using what is happening now as an example, then the actual reduction might be as high as a further 4.8% reduction, resulting in an overall reduction of 8.4%.

    Now, using that 8.4% ACTUAL, that effectively means the closure of a further 21.6% of existing CO2 emissions.

    Because Natural Gas is replacing coal fired power, then that figure of 21.6% reduction IS aimed directly at coal fired power. (and hey please don’t tell what is actually happening here, that coal fired power, with less plants, is delivering more power, in fact it has risen for the last 2 years, 5% in 2012/3 and 5% in 2013/14 so far)

    So, a reduction of 21.6% in coal fired power takes out one fifth of the whole coal fired power fleet, a removal of 355 TWH from the grids across the U.S. which comes in at around 9.5% of ALL U.S. electrical power generation.

    Now, while 9.5% sounds like it could be doable, please don’t make me laugh.

    IT’S 355TeraWattHours

    Wind and solar power have ramped up considerably since that target date 2005, in fact by a factor of TEN, in other words ten times more power delivered than in 2005. In that time, coal fired power has been replaced in MORE than its totality by NG plants, so in fact wind and solar power have not replaced ONE coal fired plant, and hey, who bloody cares, they can’t supply power on the same time basis as coal and NG anyway. And do I need to say again that NOT ONE large scale coal fired power plant larger than 800MW Nameplate has closed since I started writing about this in early 2008. [Policycritic emphasis] And hey, even if you do have the mistaken belief that it could be supplied from renewables (ramped up by a factor of ten in 9 years) both wind and solar power currently deliver 183TWH, so they need to double existing totals by 2030, another thing that WILL NOT happen, and again, hey, who cares, 7 hours a day versus 24 hours a day power delivery. It’s meaningless.

    This is just so absolutely ridiculous.

    It will never be achieved.

  67. policycritic says:

    Forgot to add: TonyfromOz’s source is

    Source EIA – Total power generation, coal and NG generation, coal consumption, NG consumption. and renewable power generation for wind and solar power.

  68. > Political Junkie says: Now, would you please give us an explanation in writing for…

    I answered this, and your other question, but my comment was binned by the mods. You can read what I said at http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/epas-new-proposed-regulations-to.html, if they let this one through.

    > Corey S. says: From the EPA…

    Ditto.

    [There are no comments from you in Spam nor Pending sections. You are, of course, free to write whatever you wish in any other web page you wish to write upon. .mod]

  69. bobl says:

    Americans, don’t be fooled, when this happens you will pay for

    1. The “penalties” for excess emissions
    2. The extra administrative costs and overheads for managing that, including those of the ever expanding EPA.
    3. Actions to comply, that is you will pay for the costs of replacing 355 TerraWatt Hours of generating plant, and all the associated pipes, poles and wires – they conveniently forget to tell you about this 2 or 3 Trillion dollars of capital works.
    4. A profit margin on all of that.
    5. Every small isolated system in America will need to be shut down and replaced, since diesel plant will no longer be possible to run. ( will be good for third world countries who can pick up diesel generating kit second hand at bargain basement prices so they can generate the CO2 that you wont)

    This is very expensive, green moves like this in Australia have driven our energy cost up over 30% since 2011. Power is SO expensive in Queensland after our pending 13% rise in July that it’s now 10 % cheaper to generate your own using diesel fuel than using grid power, which I am genuinely thinking of doing. I can pretty much guarantee that the cost to YOU the consumer will be at least 3 times the direct cost. Plus remember that this input cost will then be rolled into every good and service produced in America, but of course, not those from communist china. All of this will be paid for by YOU, the taxpayers of the USA.

    And what effect will that have on the climate to the nearest 100th of a degree? Ziltch, nada, nothing.

    One more thing to add, the rich will offset with solar or even offgrid themselves to become grid independent, this will drive up costs for anyone that doesn’t have solar. That particularly affects low income workers and renters, who either can’t afford offsets, or have landlords with no incentive to pay for providing free power to their tenants. Any compensation will compensate for the direct effect but not the remedial actions or inflationary effects of the rule. Mark my words, the poor will be hit hardest, this is the Australian experience.

    That’s why “we the people” in Oz threw the idiots that gave us our carbon tax out of office. You should do the same.

  70. philjourdan says:

    @Louis

    What baffles me is why so many Democratic politicians are willing to stand by and allow this President to destroy their political future.

    One word – Racism. They are so afraid of getting slapped with the word, they are actually practicing racism! (some would call it reverse racism, but it is not). They are treating him differently BECAUSE he uses the race card at every turn.

  71. Winston says:

    You just can’t fix “stupid.” This legislation will, as intended, further encourage the decommissioning of coal burning power plants to be replaced by natural gas burning plants because it’s cleaner, with that path already being taken because it’s also cheaper. Then, after creating greater national dependence upon natural gas, the “cheaper” part will end as predicted in the article linked to below. Lobbyists are typically clever and self-serving, pols are typically stupid and self-serving. Not a fair fight.

    U.S. Shale-Oil Boom May Not Last as Fracking Wells Lack Staying Power

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-dot-shale-oil-boom-may-not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power

    Global Sustainability’s Hughes estimates the U.S. needs to drill 6,000 new wells per year at a cost of $35 billion to maintain current production. His research also shows that the newest wells aren’t as productive as those drilled in the first years of the boom, a sign that oil companies have already tapped the best spots, making it that much harder to keep breaking records. Hughes has predicted that production will peak in 2017 and fall to 2012 levels within two years.

    “The hype about U.S. energy independence and ‘Saudi America’ is deafening if you look at the mainstream media,” Hughes says. “We need to have a much more in-depth and intelligent discussion about this.”

  72. Winston says:

    Cold, Hungry and in the Dark: Exploding the Natural Gas Supply Myth
    by Bill Powers
    Publication Date: July 2, 2013

    Conventional wisdom has North America entering a new era of energy abundance thanks to shale gas. But has industry been honest? Cold, Hungry and in the Dark argues that declining productivity combined with increasing demand will trigger a crisis that will cause prices to skyrocket, damage the economy, and have a profound impact on the lives of nearly every North American.

    Relying on faulty science, bought-and-paid-for-white papers masquerading as independent research and “industry consultants,” the “shale promoters” have vastly overstated the viable supply of shale gas resources for their own financial gain. This startling exposé, written by an industry insider, suggests that the stakes involved in the Enron scandal might seem like lunch money in comparison to the bursting of the natural gas bubble. Exhaustively researched and rigorously documented, Cold, Hungry and in the Dark:

    Puts supply-and-demand trends under a microscope
    Provides overwhelming evidence of the absurdity of the one hundred-year supply myth
    Suggests numerous ways to mitigate the upcoming natural gas price spike

    The mainstream media has told us that natural gas will be cheap and plentiful for decades, when nothing could be further from the truth. Forewarned is forearmed. Cold, Hungry and in the Dark is vital reading for anyone concerned about the inevitable economic impact of our uncertain energy future.

Comments are closed.