Will Obama's energy plan save you money?

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Back in 2009, Obama said that his energy plan will cause energy bills to skyrocket.

In 2015, Obama says his energy plan will save you money (from 14:45)

The following is a condensed version of the relevant parts of the speeches (note the full 2015 speech contains additional material of interest, such as Obama’s comments about the impact of his new plan on poor people);

What has changed since 2009, other than a cap and trade system being replaced with straight out energy regulation? The new plan seems to call for the same expensive power plant changes, which Obama said would cause energy bills to skyrocket, when he spoke back in 2009.

What do you think? Are you reassured by President Obama’s statement, that you will save money on your energy bills, under President Obama’s 2015 clean energy plan?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
August 4, 2015 3:08 pm

What will save me money is to never have to pay electricity bills in the USA (or Germany, or Denmark) and stay away from countries obsessed with the (taxable) myth of CAGW

Reply to  cnxtim
August 4, 2015 4:16 pm

most of the overage in D (Germany) and Den are taxes, not the cost of power. Those countries have made a point of encouraging power savings as a matter of national security.

Reply to  trafamadore
August 4, 2015 10:05 pm

So taxing the heck out of the poor is their best way to help the earth? That really seems like a lousy way to go about it and I really doubt the earth wants poor people to pay their government for no net benefit…

Reply to  cnxtim
August 4, 2015 11:51 pm

Well said! Please inform me of which country meets that criteria and I will come and join you.

more soylent green!
August 4, 2015 3:09 pm

If you’re a billionaire Obama supporter or a rent-seeking multinational corporation, his energy plan will make you money.
Everybody else pays through the nose.
This is redistribution of wealth from the middle-class and the working class to the mega-rich progressive investor class. As for the poor, they will find everything more expensive and will need more assistance just to stay where they are. Want to get ahead? Good luck, because the more you make the more you will pay.

Reply to  more soylent green!
August 4, 2015 4:26 pm

Yes, msg, yes. It is “crony-capitalism” or “corporatism” or “fascism”. Take your pick they all mean the same thing. There is great collusion, graft, greed, and money going from the government to the corporations. Money goes to the corporations in many ways; regulations, incentives, laws, red tape, grants, subsidy, tax cuts, tax breaks, and on and on and on. So where does the money come from? Why from what used to be called the middle class. (some say the suckers — one born every minute)
In the end, they don’t just want money. Rather they want power and they want to stay “at the top of the mountain”. They will use the power of the state to stay there and make sure you and I stay at the bottom. Welcome to “democratic feudalism”.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” ~ H. L. Mencken
CO2 is just one of the many imaginary hobgoblins the state is scaring people with today. Some don’t buy the CO2 hobgoblin but do buy into one of the many other scare myths being sold wholesale on your TV tonight. Oh well, seems we are just monkeys with tools after all.

Reply to  markstoval
August 5, 2015 10:45 am

“democratic feudalism”-good way to describe it

Reply to  more soylent green!
August 4, 2015 4:53 pm

MSG – Hi from Oz. I agree, but my understanding of the state of what’s left of the US middle class (see investor sites like http://www.advisorprespectives.com) is that they are tapped out with debt and earning less than 10 years ago, and won’t be volunteering to pay more for less energy, or anything else, for the foreseeable future. I only hope the Republicans can get their stuff together to find a Presidential candidate for your next election, otherwise its time for hardworking US citizens to look for a new place to live. Best of luck!

Reply to  more soylent green!
August 5, 2015 4:13 am

I’ve got to say, as I look at this I’m thinking that the rich will get richer because they are going to bet on (invest in) the companies who will make money though this new regulation. I’m not one who thinks that increased CO2 will cause massive, life changing increases in temperature, and I’ve not changed my life to prepare for increased warming in any way.
But, I don’t want to be a wage slave for the rest of my life, either. If President Obama has unveiled a plan that will force a change in the way energy is produced, and rich progressive investors will profit from a re-distribution of wealth from the working class, I’m thinking that I want in on that sweet bounty of wealth redistribution. If money is going to flow from people who work 9 to 5 jobs, paying taxes, living in apartments, buying beer and grilling out on the barbecue, then I want to be there to catch some of it.
The mechanism for this flow of money seems to be making electricity from energy companies run by coal powered generators much more expensive. Well, that’s something that I can watch for, and control for. If we have cost shifts in electricity, I can certainly take steps to manage my electricity costs. More to the point, however, I can start investing in companies that are due to profit off of this, and watch my wealth expand right along with theirs. Why should they be the only ones to come out on top from this?
So, I guess I’ll just work on preventing my costs from rising, where I can, and follow the smart money and invest in whatever is going to be replacing coal in the short term. This has nothing to do with the environment, as far as I’m concerned, but, when it appears that trains are going to take over from horse drawn wagons, one stops investing in horse feed and starts investing in railroads. It’s just the smart way to look out after my own personal future.

August 4, 2015 3:10 pm

If Obama Energy does for energy what Obamacare did for healthcare I’ll be in the poorhouse in no time.

Reply to  tomwtrevor
August 5, 2015 9:09 am


David Walton
August 4, 2015 3:12 pm

Costs will skyrocket.

Sweet Old Bob
August 4, 2015 3:21 pm

I think Willis answered your question two days ago …costs go up 3.3 x……
And if you like your old electricity bill , you can keep it ….(8>(( … I wish…

Myron Mesecke
August 4, 2015 3:22 pm

I’m glad that my daughters are smart and going for high paying engineering jobs. They’re going to need every penny with the democrats and liberals in control.

Reply to  Myron Mesecke
August 5, 2015 7:31 pm

Not many engineers are needed in countries that don’t manufacture anything!

August 4, 2015 3:22 pm

Will Obama’s energy plan save you money?
What a ridiculous question. What has our narcissist in chief ever done that has saved money for anyone?

Reply to  kamikazedave
August 5, 2015 9:13 am

If you look at the text, they say they will save you money over the BAU price of energy. So it does not mean that it will cost you less than you are paying now, it means that you will pay less than you would have paid without the rule. So when the time comes, there will be no way to actually verify if that statement is true or not, since all the bills will be higher. In my book, that means it is a logical null.

August 4, 2015 3:26 pm

Supply, meet demand.

August 4, 2015 3:27 pm

I bought a $7,500.00 EPA-approved wood stove last year. THAT will save me money.
Ultimately. No thanks to the Tiresome One.

Brad P
Reply to  Goldrider
August 4, 2015 4:07 pm

Be watchful, my state (Utah) tried to ban them last year. While the EPA seems to still support these EPA stoves, some local environmentalists feel that anything which burns wood is bad and must be banned from use. After some public hearings which had massive turnout and 99% against their idea, the new head guy at Utah’s environmental office has made statements indiciating he’s going to try the ban again soon.

Reply to  Goldrider
August 4, 2015 4:08 pm

Hope you don’t live in Michigan. There are environmentalists who are trying to outlaw burning wood here.

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  katherine009
August 4, 2015 4:44 pm

[Snip – OTT. mod]

Olaf Koenders
Reply to  katherine009
August 5, 2015 12:12 am

Aww.. okay..
How about we stop enviro’s burning anything and demand they live as they espouse others – to freeze in the dark and eat their food raw and cold?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  katherine009
August 5, 2015 2:44 am

But aren’t they the ones who espoused biofuels & burning of biomass to produce electricity?

Ted G
August 4, 2015 3:33 pm

Obama and the EPA are crooks, they are pathological liars. The day this man was born placed a curse on America and the World. He is a living,breathing cluster F bomb to the economy and all the good things American!.

Joe Civis
Reply to  Ted G
August 4, 2015 3:45 pm

+100 well said!!

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Ted G
August 4, 2015 5:06 pm

97% of the world agree with you.

August 4, 2015 3:47 pm

Obama is a politician. Politicians lie—- that’s how they get us to elect them in the first place. So—do I expect Obama’s plan will save me money? In a pig’s eye.

Reply to  mjmsprt40
August 5, 2015 2:32 am

Obama saying you save money means you loose money. That is pretty simple here. I’m not sure what he wants but definitely it has nothing to do with you saving some money.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  mjmsprt40
August 5, 2015 7:47 am

How can you tell Obama is lying? His lips are moving.

August 4, 2015 3:49 pm

At about 16:30, is he really drawing a connection between asthma and climate change?

Reply to  JohnB
August 4, 2015 4:09 pm

He’s claimed that global warming has caused his daughter’s asthma. But his smoking in the home has had nothing to do with it.

Reply to  katherine009
August 4, 2015 4:30 pm

Surprise, the kid has a food allergy.

Reply to  JohnB
August 4, 2015 4:29 pm

But there has been no climate change for 18 years. How can she get asthma from temperatures that are not rising? CO2 is really magical!

Reply to  markstoval
August 5, 2015 2:33 am

It is the OHC.

August 4, 2015 3:49 pm

You would think that claim is self-evidently preposterous. If renewables were cheaper than coal they’re certainly not cheaper than building nothing and simply using existing, adequate plant. The last thing any developed country needs is more electricity supply.
But the people have been lied to SO much I suspect “47%” will actually hear this and think “Obama is making my power cheaper AND saving the planet” – I’m predicting it polls well. In Oz, an uncosted ecoloon wishlist seems to be and the meeja is howling down any attempts to “scare” people about costs of $100bn for something we don’t need.

Berényi Péter
August 4, 2015 4:00 pm

Will Obama’s energy plan save you money?

Of course. The more you spend, the less you’ll lose once hyperinflation kicks in.

August 4, 2015 4:02 pm

Essentially everything he says is a lie. “Like your doctor, keep your doctor”, for example
CO2 has risen 10 percent in the last two decades and temperature has not budged a bit (satellite data).
QED. Hypothesis of man-made global warming is falsified.
Tell your representatives to stop listening to this sh*t, stop accepting the premise of stupid “climate-deniers” questions, and stop accommodating ANYTHING this administration proposes. Tell the media to “Sit on it and spin”, as Ted Cruz recently did [a bit more eloquently]
Go on offense! Challenge everything they say and every scheme they hatch. Demand facts. Conduct investigations across the board. Issue subpoenas. Send Federal Marshals to confiscate records, computer files, hard drives, the works. Indict those who have fraudulently used federal grants, those who have suborned perjury, those who have conspired to avoid FOIA information requests, those who have given false testimony to Congressional committees, etc., etc.
Deal with this corrupt regime as it actually exists. Kick some butt.
The fate of our Republic is at stake.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
August 4, 2015 4:04 pm

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand.
— Milton Friedman

So no, the Obama energy plan will not save you money, nor make electricity more plentiful or reliable. What a shock.

The Expulsive
August 4, 2015 4:10 pm

As an Ontarian already in the grip of the rent seekers, who are currently pushing to have industrial wind turbines placed in an area in Prince Edward County that is not only the biggest flyway between Ontario and New York but also (supposedly) a wildlife area, Obama and the EPA’s plans to take coal off-line may take the sting out of our over-priced electricity bills, knowing yours will now sky rocket. What a great way to level the electrical costs playing fields!
It costs a lot of money to go green, if that means building a massive gas powered generation system to back up unreliable green power or to replace coal, so replacing America’s coal plants with gas plants will be a boon to the turbine manufacturers (and others). Sure power rates will go up, but think of all those construction jobs and how well the gas producers will do.
Yes what ethanol did for feed costs and the cost of food!
What do you mean I am being sarcastic?

August 4, 2015 4:11 pm

Will Obama’s plan save you money? Yes, if you’re applying for renewable energy subsidies.

August 4, 2015 4:17 pm

He is a despicable person and history will substantiate that fact.

Bruce Cobb
August 4, 2015 4:18 pm

Hey, you never know. Maybe in an alternate, topsy-turvy, black-is-white reality it would save money.

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 4, 2015 7:33 pm

How about a half black – half white world? Oh. Wait ….

Cliff Hilton
August 4, 2015 4:29 pm

It will not save money. It will cost money. It’s ObamaCare all over again!

john robertson
August 4, 2015 4:31 pm

For sure.
Once you hit poverty you have no money to spare, so Obama will save you from making any spending choices.
Sort of what all these do-gooders all aspire to, it is a free world as long as you chose what they want of you.

August 4, 2015 4:45 pm

if you believe this is “efficient” and “relatively painless”, you obviously haven’t been paying attention:
5 Aug: Bloomberg: Don’t Like Obama’s Carbon Plan? Fine, Here’s Cap and Trade
by Mark Drajem and Lynn Doan
Now, while the Chamber (of Commerce) said it opposes the new Environmental Protection Agency’s carbon regulations, many company representatives say they’re pleased that trading can be used to help them keep down the cost of cutting their use of coal under the EPA regulations.
“Trading is one of the most efficient ways to get the market to act,” said Arvin Ganesan, vice president at Advanced Energy Economy in Washington, which represents companies such as Johnson Controls Inc. and First Solar Inc. “It yields results and minimizes the cost on customers.”…
“It’s a really big leap forward,” said Bob Wyman, a lawyer representing companies such as Alstom SA, Calpine Corp. and Boeing Co. which support the EPA’s efforts and say they want them to work. The way EPA set it up, states can enter a trading system by default and so that may be the easiest option.
“It makes it easier for the rank-and-file officials to say that this is doable,” said Vicki Arroyo, the head of the Georgetown Climate Center. “It will be relatively painless.”…

August 4, 2015 4:49 pm

We all forgot something. I remember clearly, in Obama’s first term, the administration made a huge push for a Cap And Trade system. This was a major policy initiative and part of his “Fundamental Transformation”. After a while the bill got bogged down in congress. To get it moving, the president made open threats, on numerous occasions, that if the C and T bill failed, he would use the EPA to regulate the power industry. And he made it clear that the regulation would be far worse than any C and T legislation would be. He was outright blackmailing congress, there is no other way of putting it. In any event, congress declined on the C and T bill.
Viewed from this historical perspective, this program is nothing more than president Petulant making good on his threats. This regulatory agenda is designed to hurt and cause harm, it is just that simple.

Under my plan of cap and trade, electric rates would necessarily skyrocket

What kind of morally bankrupt leader would actually propose such a thing.

michael hart
August 4, 2015 5:09 pm
Mike the Morlock
August 4, 2015 5:13 pm

Well I guess Nikita Khrushchev got it down right.


Reply to  Mike the Morlock
August 5, 2015 3:33 am

We will Barry you!

Reply to  gnomish
August 5, 2015 5:20 am
Donald Mitchell
August 4, 2015 5:23 pm

If the “Fundamental Transformation” manages to reduce the US back to the current level of some of the countries that appear to be in favor in DC now, electric bills for many people could well decrease. You can’t spend money on what you can’t get.

August 4, 2015 5:50 pm

If you like your power plant you can keep your power plant.

David Walton
August 4, 2015 5:53 pm

Report: Obama’s Climate Plan Will Shrink Coal Industry By 48 Percent
“President Barack Obama’s plan targeting coal-burning power plants will cost a quarter of a million jobs and shrink the coal industry by nearly half, according to a new report by the American Action Forum (AAF).”

August 4, 2015 6:15 pm

CO2 reductions to solve Climate change? Wrong solution for the world. A Limerick.
Renewable energy: – Clean.
The world is so dirty and mean.
Never mind the expense
and it doesn’t make sense.
CO2 is what makes the world green.
The White House Aug 3 announced a target of 32% reduction in CO2 emission from U.S. power plants by 2030. This is a target that no existing Coal fired power plant can meet, only natural gas fired power plants. He also proposed a 70% reduction in emissions other than CO2, which has its merits.
Obama may yet succeed in his campaign promise: “Under my plan the electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.”
more… http://lenbilen.com/2015/08/03/co2-reductions-to-solve-climate-change-wrong-solution-for-the-world-a-limerick/

Michael Jankowski
August 4, 2015 6:27 pm

He said in 2009 that “prices would necessarily skyrocket.” But we’re going to be soooooo energy efficient and use sooooooo much less energy while saving soooooooo much money in health care costs and lives that it will more than balance-out and save us money.

August 4, 2015 6:50 pm

Long term both Obamacare and Obamaclimatecontrol will save you money. Rationing will eliminate the ability to buy either medical care or electric power except by the rich and powerful. Connected people will have ration cards issued the rest will do without. Eventually the old and infirm will die off from the cold or lack of medical care, solving the insolvancy of Social Security and Medicare/Medicade. The reduced population will put less demand on rationed resources and pressure on the environment. Mandated vegetarian diets, reduced living accomidations and only public transportation will further reduce resource demands; except for the ruling class. Welcome to the new age of Fudalism!

Wayne Delbeke
Reply to  Katana
August 4, 2015 7:37 pm

On the way to 1 billion?

George DeVries Klein,PhD, PG, FGSA
August 4, 2015 6:58 pm

To answer Eric Worrall’s two-part question “What do you think? Are you reassured by President Obama’s statement, that you will save money on your energy bills, under President Obama’s 2015 clean energy plan?,”
My answer is (1) I don;t think much of it, and (2) No,No, No (It wont save money one energy and other bills).

August 4, 2015 9:59 pm

I am aware of the energy supply reduction and the energy demand reduction that the greenies favor. But if the demand gets restricted more than the supply does, then energy prices will fall according to the classic and still-existing law of supply and demand, or at least continue to be affordable to working class folks.
This is why I favor standards and mandates for energy efficiency of appliances, new homes and buildings, and motor vehicles of kinds used mostly for commuting – and business use while having something like 75% of its mileage being used to haul less than half a ton of cargo, and ballast (including tools flunking some standard of being tools rather than ballast) not being qualified as cargo.
I favor reduction of energy demand for 4 main reasons:
1:) Americans get to pay less for energy (see below), and America gets its balance of trade more in its favor.
2:) Reducing need to construct power plants or to improve the already-sometimes-stressed grid reduces cost of upgrading electricity generating, transmission and distribution. The savings get passed on to consumers, even if the unit price of electrical energy increases due to US state regulations guaranteeing some level of profitability to established electrical energy utilities and their investors. If everyone equally decreases their electricity consumption by 25%, their inflation-adjusted electric bills would decrease by maybe 15%.
3:) Reducing need to construct new power plants or transmission lines means reducing caseloads in courts where environmentalists sue to stop or add roadblocks to construction. The cost of these court cases and the cost of added interest incurred on unused borrowed money gets passed on to the ratepayers.
4:) Reducing future need for power plants reduces future pollution, even by gases/vapors other than CO2. Such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbon leakage (including methane) into the atmosphere while hydrocarbon fuel is on the way from in-earth to being burned. Hydrocarbons in the atmosphere are not only greenhouse gases, but also they are an ingredient for production of surface-level ozone – the main lung irritant in modern air pollution achieving “unhealthful” level in USA.

Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 4, 2015 11:41 pm

No Donald… prices will NOT fall as less is used, they will increase. The government and energy companies require a certain level of income and will just charge more to make up the difference. In California, we are mandated to use less water, however as we use less, the utilities and the government bring in less and thus they have decided they NEED to charge more. Another example, if you drive a hybrid car to save money on gas… Guess what, you use less gas and the taxes and fees go up to make up for the shortfall. Same way for solar… as more people switch to solar on their home, the rates from the utilities go up, not down as your false logic dictates. Obama’s and the socialist/green energy plan are NOTHING but bad news for all the middle and working class/

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Donald L. Klipstein
August 5, 2015 4:02 am

That is both fuzzy-brained as well as wrong thinking, Donald. For starters, we do not need or want more government control, but rather less. It is about individual freedoms as well as state’s rights. Furthermore, reducing our demand for energy via “energy efficiency” measures only works up to a point, and afterwards is subject to the law of diminishing returns. The goal of “energy efficiency” is a false one, because what you wind up with are high-priced goods which usually don’t work as well, and thus are actually less efficient.

David Charles
August 4, 2015 11:23 pm

Who is your nominee for the biggest carbon-footprint attendee at the Climate Control Charades in Paris next November? How many business jets will fly there? Where will they park? How many limousines will transport them to their hotels, restaurants and the C3 venues? Who will have the largest entourage? Who will have the largest motorcade? Sorry, no prizes! It’s a foregone conclusion. What a legacy!

Louis Hunt
August 5, 2015 12:44 am

I searched for how Obama’s energy plan will save me money (up to $85 a year), and I couldn’t find an explanation anywhere. Replacing cheap coal with expensive renewables can only cost me more. So there are only two ways I can see how they might have come up with the estimate:
1) It is an estimate of how much will be saved in funeral costs from fewer people dying from “carbon polution.”
2) It is an estimate of how much the average person will save from power blackouts during times when there’s not enough power being generated to meet demands.
Of course, they must not have figured in the cost of replacing spoiled food or the cost of increased crime or the increase in funeral expenses of people dying from heat/cold/crime/lack-of-medication etc. during those blackouts.

Karl Compton
Reply to  Louis Hunt
August 5, 2015 10:29 am

You’ll save money because HE said so. And you’ll like it, you racist hater!

William Baird
August 5, 2015 12:47 am

I am impressed by what the President has said.
He has truly achieved everything. Saving the planet whilst providing abundant cheap electricity for all
The new generation windfarms will pour out free electricity, even when the wind is not blowing, the vast new solar panels will work all through the night and in dull weather.
The reduction in CO2 will lower temperatures by 0.000? We will all be saved. The President, working closely with the Pope, will ensure the safe transfer of power to the UN who will wisely rule the whole globe (except possibly Russia, China, N. Korea and ISIS)
All Hail the Commander in Chief I say.
Sorry, must go, the nice man in the white coat has come to put me where I cant hurt myself.

August 5, 2015 2:14 am

The enthusiastic reception of the Obama plan by the BBC (or so I thought- I might be prejudiced) has provoked a more sober assessment at BishopHill
and some of the comments are of interest .
Assuming that I am not breaching any copyright rules I would like to copy part of what one commenter ,”dennisa” said, to illustrate the interlocking web of political and financial interests that lie behind the Obama plan:
“One of the main drivers of CO2 controls in the US has been former Clinton EPA head Carol Browner, she had formerly worked for Al Gore, before he became VP. She became director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy in the Obama administration in December, 2008, a post she left in 2010. She was previously a vice-president of Socialist International, a member of their Commission for a Sustainable World Society, a member of the Board of Directors of Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and a member of the Board of Directors of John Podesta’s Center for American Progress.
Podesta was Chief of Staff to Bill Clinton from October 1998 until January 2001 and was co-chairman of the Obama-Biden transition team. That team contained 31 members who had previously worked in the Clinton Administration. Continuity is the name of the game and it will be the same again if Mrs Clinton becomes President, as Podesta is now running Hillary’s presidential bid.
Since leaving the government Browner is once again a Senior Fellow at Podesta’s CAP, of which Joe Romm’s Climate Progress is an offshoot. CAP is funded by billionaire donors such as George Soros, the Sandler Foundation and various corporates such as Walmart.
Browner handed over the reins to Lisa Jackson who actually delivered the Endangerment Finding, long in the making, which gave the EPA legal backing to control CO2 emissions. In 2009 she spoke at a youth activist gathering called “Power Shift”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1C7vMNQv2g.
She told the ecstatic crowd that “Our first steps on taking office were to resume the CO2 endangerment finding and to seek fuel efficiency standards to reduce carbon pollution. The Law says Greenhouse Gases are pollution.”
Lisa Jackson always seemed happier speaking to the UN than she did to Congress. She was a key speaker in the Twelfth Session of the “Global Major Groups and Stakeholders Forum” (GMGSF) which was held from 19-20 February 2011 prior to the 26th Session of the UNEP Governing Council/ Global Ministerial Environment Forum (GC26/GMEF) which took place from 21-24 February 2011, in Nairobi, Kenya. At that forum she signed a Memorandum of Understanding on behalf of the US with UNEP, part of which included a commitment to transitioning to a green economy, http://www2.epa.gov/international-cooperation/memorandum-understanding-mou-between-epa-and-united-nations-environment.”
Probably all the US readers here already knew that , but it was new to me as an outsider , and what is disturbing is that it will be used as a template for action in UK – if not already covered by our Climate change act – and elsewhere, except of course in China , India, Brazil, Russia, Japan, S Korea . etc.

August 5, 2015 2:46 am

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

August 5, 2015 5:15 am

The short answer is no it can not possibly save you money. Here’s an “educated” guess as to how studies might show that it could. First the basic tricks: Grossly underestimate the cost of renewables and integrating them into the system and forecast continued cost improvements. Escalate costs associated with coal and existing infrastructure and the generation of coal energy. Ignore those places where you will pay more in order to subsidize your energy bill (taxes and costs of infrastructure in your own residence).
I think the big sleight of hand trick that they are using is “natural gas”. Natural gas should work to lower prices, but I suspect they are crediting the EPA Plan with the full benefits from natural gas. That is silly and dishonest. The comparison case should have just as much (or more) usage of natural gas as the EPA case.
Perhaps they are clever and have a few more, or else pure fabrications. But guaranteed tit took a lot of work to get to that savings.
Read comments of FERC Commissioner Clark calling this “the stuff of unicorns and leprechauns”. http://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/file_list.asp?accession_num=20150803-3028

old fella
August 5, 2015 7:03 am

I think the correct spelling of the world’s greatest dummy is O-BOMB-A.

Tom in Florida
August 5, 2015 7:59 am

“Are you reassured by President Obama’s statement, that you will save money on your energy bills, under President Obama’s 2015 clean energy plan?”
It is said that there is no such thing as a stupid question. But THAT is a stupid question.

August 5, 2015 8:31 am

Just for the record, the “skyrocket” remark during an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board took place not in 2009, but January 17, 2008, when Obama was still a Senator and had not yet secured the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination. To its discredit, the Chronicle did not mention the remark in the several resulting stories. To its credit, it did embed a link to the entire interview in the first of those stories and it remains available on the paper’s web site. Regrettably, the statement was not reported anywhere I have been able to find until–literally–24 hours before voters went to the polls in November 2008. Would it have made the difference if widely reported earlier? Who knows? But if any of Obama’s rivals were aware of the thing early on, they grievously mishandled their opportunity.

August 5, 2015 8:37 am

Here in Ontario, Canada our premier is trying to figure out why industry is leaving the province.
It just MIGHT be due to the high price of electricity for industry. Costs are going through the roof, but there are times when we actually have excess energy. Do Ontarians get a benefit of this?
Of course not.
This energy gets sold, at a great price, to bordering states and provinces.
You know, those states and provinces which compete with Ontario industry.
I believe it is Communist China that bills the family for the bullet that they use to execute people.
Same principle.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  CaligulaJones
August 5, 2015 11:11 am

We actually have plenty of electricity capacity in Ontario, but the ideologues insist on subsidizing more “green” energy, even cutting power from hydro stations when the swindlemills and subsidy farms are running – which is rarely..
Yopu can get real time and archived data about the Ontario electricity supply here http://www.ieso.ca/
It is a deliberate government policy to make electricity expensive. And the provincial government cronies are stashing the cash like crazy.

August 5, 2015 8:48 am

In 2009, Obama made a terrible mistake. He told the truth. Since then, he has learned the effectiveness of lying, and the complete lack of consequence he faces for it. He knows that he can say just about anything as long as he is eloquent in saying it, and the media lapdogs will just continue their impression of lobotomized bobble-head dolls.
Will his energy plan save us money? Money is saved only when resources are provided and used more efficiently. One cannot make anything less efficiently and have it be less expensive than the same product produce more efficiently. That is a law of economics and not even the first black president of the United States can override such a law.
Will his energy policy have any positive impact on climate? Of course not! But that doesn’t matter, does it? This is not about climate and never has been. If this great crusade had anything to do with climate, it would have fizzled out decades ago when the science became overwhelmingly unsupportive of a man-made global warming crisis.
So what is this about? Government power and control, my friend.
The US government was created with three branches. Only one of them was designed to write law. The other two were supposed to keep the law-writers in check, so that government power and control would not run amok. Today, all three branches are writing laws while the other two look on in nearly complete complicity. The US Constitution is a really good idea! Maybe we should try it!

August 5, 2015 9:26 am

I am taking these savings to the same bank I banked by Obamacare savings.

Robert of Ottawa
August 5, 2015 9:49 am

If you like your electricity, you can keep your electricity.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
August 5, 2015 11:41 am

If you like your new, high-priced “green” electricity, you get to keep it.
And even if you don’t like it, you get to keep it.

August 5, 2015 10:26 am

It is like how he claimed you would save money on gas because of his car mileage regulations. The idea is you will use less energy, so you will save money even as the cost goes up.

Reply to  MikeN
August 5, 2015 11:34 am

He lied about Obamacare costs, he’s lying about this too.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  MikeN
August 5, 2015 1:28 pm

As mpg goes up, so will fed and state gasoline taxes.
Obama is really upset that gas hasn’t hit $5 per gallon, but that gives money hungry politicians room to jack up the taxes to fund railroads to nowhere.

Adam from Kansas
August 5, 2015 11:04 am

All I have to do is walk around the neighborhood to see that CO2 is not a problem. This Summer here in Kansas is amazingly green and lush compared to what it could be (despite plenty of 90 degree and even some 100 degree days).
This might actually be coinciding by the studies that found a skyrocketing rate of photosynthesis on hot days when CO2 levels rise, and there’s almost no doubt a major CO2 burp going on right now into the atmosphere as per the ongoing El Nino.
There’s also been indications that record harvests for corn and other fall crops may be on the way as well, the farmers would’ve been looking forward to cash out big time if not for plunging prices.
The best thing really is to keep the CO2 emissions going, ideally until the current levels get to around 1000-1500 PPM. Then we formally switch to clean energy as the benefits for plants will be maxed out.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Adam from Kansas
August 5, 2015 1:38 pm

I believe you are correct about boosting CO2. It will be vital to support population increase and boost poor countries caloric intake to a reasonable level.
The only situation that could reduce the increased food production is a long cold spell, which is out of our hands.

August 5, 2015 11:41 am

Will impeaching Obama save you money?

Bob Diaz
August 5, 2015 1:11 pm

When has Government ever did ANYTHING that saved us money? ;-))

August 5, 2015 7:34 pm

The costs not talked about and hidden from all are caused by the unreliable nature of the renewables. Electrical costumers expect electricity to be more reliable than their phone, 0.00000000 outages. Presently, during high demand periods your electric utility may be paying (or selling) electricity to utilities that can not meet demand for over $5,000 per kWh [that is not a typo, yes it is 100,000 – 200,000 time what they usally sell it for.] With Unreliables (renewables) there will be many more periods when they get to buy or sell that EXPENSIVE electricity. The utilities love it because when they have the extra they make BIG money, they hate it because when the wind turbines are not moving, they have to buy it at those inflated prices. And YOU are the ones that pay those prices. All of the projection do not include this hidden cost, and they only project $0.40 – $0.50 per kWh. the Unreliables are going to double that projection during peak portions of the year – hint summer AC Season. Hope you live in the north near a lake and can live without AC, or food, take your choice.

August 5, 2015 7:59 pm

The hidden cost is the fact that unreliable electricity [renewables] create an extreme volatility into the price electricity is sold between electric utilities/ Back during the Enron fiasco electricity sold for as much as $5,000 per kWh [that is not a typo]. Electric utilities can pay for a CCTG in one summer if they have one, and never need it again. Conversely, With 30% of their power mandated to come from unreliables, that same utility may be paying some other utility for the CCTG that they are buying their need electricity from. In turn YOU get to pay for it in your electric bill. In the end it all averages out and your electric bill is Doubled again.
“Live long and prosper” Not with Obamas plan.

johann wundersamer
August 6, 2015 3:49 pm

‘Will Obama’s energy plan save
you money?’
some women love shopping; shopping is more fun than working.
some scientists love models; climate modelling is more fun than working.
some investment bankers love CDOs; CDOs are more fun than working.
some presidents and chancellors love energy plans; energy plans are more fun than working.
— the human conditions —

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights