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.
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
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.
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.
“”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.
“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.
@Louis
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.
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.
@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.
Nothing like a blackout to concentrate a political mind.
I was under the impression Winston (that’s no trick zone’s name for WC) was banned at WUWT. If not why not Anthony??
EPA is clearly in the pockets of Big Oil and Big Gas.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
jonova commenter TonyfromOz had an interesting comment about Obama’s proposal.
Forgot to add: TonyfromOz’s source is
America’s future:
http://www.weather.com/travel/ruins-rust-belt-abandoned-buildings-photos-seph-lawless-20140206
> 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]
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.
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.”
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.
http://www.amazon.com/Cold-Hungry-Dark-Exploding-Natural/dp/0865717435/