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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
@George Wolff – 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
TROLL ALERT!!!
This guy William Connolley is a super-duper-uber TROLL.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/
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.
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.
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.
‘..,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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
” 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.
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.
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.