By Mark Krebs — September 9, 2022
“The environmentalists have been emboldened by their ‘win’ with the passage of the IRA. Never satisfied, their petition is one of the first attempts to expand it.”
It never ends…. In the wake of the 725-page “Inflation Reduction Act” (IRA), consumer choice for energy could be intentionally restricted to electricity by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Or at least that seems to be the plan. According to a petition submitted by environmentalists, EPA should regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from using natural gas in homes and businesses.
The eco-lobby has been emboldened by their “win” with the passage of the IRA. Never satisfied, their petition is one of the first attempts to expand it.
Background
On Tuesday, August 23, 2022, The Hill published an article by staffer Rachel Frazin stating “26 health, environmental and consumer protection organizations” petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency for the ban in residences and commercial buildings, citing health and climate impacts. The article provided a link to the 36-page petition dated the same day as the article.
Also on the same day, Yahoo! News published another article (by Senior Editor Ben Adler) on the same subject: Activists petition EPA to restrict the use of home and commercial furnaces by 2030. Excerpt:
The petitioners argue that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate pollution from residential and commercial furnaces.
“The Clean Air Act says, in the text we cite a few times throughout the petition, that if the administrator finds that a source contributes significantly to pollution that endangers the public health, then the administrator must list the source and set standards,” Amneh Minkara, Sierra Club’s building electrification campaign deputy director, told Yahoo News. “Our petition makes the case, and I think it’s a pretty compelling case that these appliances meet both of those criteria. And so we think that the EPA administrator must list the source.”
While the Yahoo! News version of the story contained a little more information than The Hill article, neither directly linked the petition to the just enacted “Inflation Reduction Act.” In truth, they are intimately connected.
On August 26, Watts Up With That (WUWT) posted an article titled The Inflation Reduction Act doesn’t get around the Supreme Court’s climate ruling in West Virginia v. EPA, but it does strengthen EPA’s future abilities. It was a repost of an article by Patrick Parenteau, Professor of Law, Vermont Law School, originally published on August 24th in the academic law journal The Conversation (original article). Excerpt:
The Inflation Reduction Act amends the Clean Air Act to add seven specific new programs to reduce greenhouse gases and provide funding to the states to develop their own plans. Taken together, these provisions go a long way to address Roberts’ concern that Congress has not spoken plainly enough about EPA’s authority to tackle climate change.
But it falls short of granting EPA the authority to revive the generation shifting approach of the Clean Power Plan.
To get the bill through the sharply divided Congress, the Senate’s Democratic majority used a process called budget reconciliation. That process allows for legislation to pass with only a simple majority of the vote. But legislation passed that way must be closely tied to spending, revenue and the federal debt limit – it cannot set broad national policy.
Parenteau’s article did not cite where the IRA says CO2 is a “criteria” emission or gives EPA control. I wrote and asked. I disclosed my interests as an energy policy research analyst and consultant assessing how the IRA may affect energy consumers. His response:
Title VI of the IRA deals with EPA’s regulatory authorities under the Clean Air Act. There are a number of provisions that for the first time define GHG’s as “air pollutants” under section 302 of the CAA. The Supreme Court in Mass v EPA reached that same conclusion, but it was a 5-4 vote and three of the current justices (Roberts, Alito, and Thomas) dissented from that conclusion. My view (joined by others) is that the IRA in effect ratifies the majority opinion in Mass.
Title VI contains a number of provisions instructing EPA to use its CAA authorities to reduce GHG’s. For example, Sec. 60107 directs EPA to use $18M to “to ensure that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are achieved through use of the existing authorities of this Act”. Also Sec. 60113 compels EPA to achieve methane emissions reductions under sec. 111 of the CAA that are at least equivalent or greater to what EPA recently proposed.
Hope that helps. I would not be surprised to see these issues making their way back to the SCOTUS in some form. Depends on how aggressive EPA moves forward with several rulemakings including replacing the clean power plan.
Having been pointed to Title VI of the IRA, Secs. 60107 and 60113, I started reading. Sec. 60107 starts on page 668 and Sec. 60113 starts on page 678. Among other things, Sec. 60107 modifies the CAA to promote:
“(1) activities of the Environmental Protection Agency for the purposes of providing financial and technical assistance to reduce methane and other greenhouse gas emissions…..” and
‘‘(E) mitigating health effects of methane and other greenhouse gas emissions, and legacy air pollution from petroleum and natural gas systems…”
Under Sec. 60113, starting at the top of page 681, a carbon fee per metric ton is authorized:
‘‘(c) WASTE EMISSIONS CHARGE.—The Administrator shall impose and collect a charge on methane emissions that exceed an applicable waste emissions threshold under subsection (f) from an owner or operator of an applicable facility that reports more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gases emitted per year pursuant to subpart W of part 98 of title 40…”
I venture to guess the fee may be the “Social Cost of Carbon” (SCC), which now stands at $51 per metric ton under the Biden administration (up from $1 per ton under Trump). However, the fees for methane emissions are explicitly stated on page 682:
- 2024: $900
- 2025: $1,200
- 2026 and thereafter: $1,500
Devils in the Details
At a minimum, these provisions provide an opening for EPA to regulate carbon and methane emissions. How wide of an opening is at least debatable and probably will be litigated (as Professor Parenteau anticipates).
This could result in CO2 and methane emissions regulated at the point of use (“point source”) as additional “criteria pollutants,” regulated because they are deemed harmful to human life.
What the environmentalists seem to be trying to do via their petition to the EPA is to make homes and businesses point sources for future regulation of carbon emissions. So why didn’t the environmentalists petition EPA to also target electric utilities? After all, electric utilities consume significantly more natural gas and emit more resultant CO2 than residential and commercial gas customers combined.
The answer is: That would not be consistent with the partnership that has developed between the electric utility industry and environmentalists to achieve their utopian goal of all-renewables-all-the-time.
An Unholy Alliance
I discussed this connection in my MasterResource article last month titled All-Electric Forcing in the “Inflation Reduction Act” (up to $14,000 per home). In that article, I referenced another article about a 2018 pact between the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) and the Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) titled Warring Against Natural Gas: Joint EEI/NRDC Statement to NARUC (crony environmentalism at work).
On September 2, 2022, Politico, published an article that (unintentionally) revealed the close working relationship between EEI and Biden’s Climate chief (ex-NRDC’s) Gina McCarthy in crafting the Inflation Reduction Act. Mission complete, she is leaving the White House, and John Podesta is replacing her. The article is titled “Climate chief Gina McCarthy leaving White House as John Podesta returns.”
Other sources of the electric utilities’ motivation include:
- The lure for electric utility CEOs to double sales through political means (and the bonuses they engender none-the-less) without really having to earn it through competition.
- The prospect for electric utilities to control gas markets and put an end to their supply curtailments when residential gas consumers traditionally get top priority during periods of limited supply due to extreme cold. (No more residential consumers, no more curtailments.)
- It is at least plausible that electric utilities don’t really believe that the best form of backing-up renewables is with batteries because they want to keep their product from getting priced out of the market. Gas-fueled power plants would economically serve peaking requirements, but not if their fuel is curtailed. Also note that at least some types of batteries have a hard time during very cold weather.
EPA also has some perverse motivations. One of these is claiming regulatory efficiency by eliminating all the small point sources (gas consumers) with a relatively few large point sources left (e.g., electric utility power plants).
Overloading Electricity
Regardless of the rationale, transferring the energy requirements presently served by fossil fuels for both transportation and heating (etc.) on an already teetering electric grid is a recipe for failure. We can already see it starting in Europe and now in California:
- Listening to European Electricity Traders Is Very, Very Scary
- The British Energy Horror Story
- California’s electrical grid has an EV problem.
Vehicle electrification alone could double electricity generation requirements. Building electrification could more than double electricity peak generation requirements considering extreme cold weather events presently dominated by the direct use of gaseous fuels and fuel oil. Some of my colleagues have estimated it would take as much as 7 times present peak generation to handle “polar vortex” events.
How much battery storage you need depends on the maximum length of outage you’re planning for. “Wind droughts” have lasted 7 days. Typical batteries can produce their rated (fair weather) output for 4 hours. And what happens when it’s too bitterly cold and snowy for wind, solar and batteries to deliver?
Do the math considering the worst-case scenario because people’s lives depend on it. Basically, it becomes apparent that all renewables (with batteries) isn’t going to happen.” But you might die from them trying. One way or another, you will pay for their folly. In fact, you already are.
Cost Analytics
If reducing carbon emissions is really the primary objective, then why not mandate that consumers replace all electric resistance appliances with natural gas-fueled equivalents? At least in the Midwest, it is relatively straight-forward to show how such fuel switching from electricity to natural gas is a very cost-effective strategy for reducing the atmospheric release of carbon emissions. In fact, the American Public Gas Association did so in 2017 (summary; full report).
A second phase of this study estimated typical costs per household state-by-state. The full report, and its customizable data spreadsheet, is available on the Energy & Environment Legal Institute’s (E&E Legal) website. According to the report, electrifying the entire nation, with a goal of eliminating the direct consumption of fuel to reduce carbon emissions, would conservatively cost between $18 trillion and $29 trillion in first costs.
At least conceivably, total costs could be double these estimates. Going all-renewable all the time will force costs much higher than these estimates. Also, constructing and implementing an “all-electric” energy monoculture will include other significant costs such as stranded assets and deadweight losses.
Summary & Conclusions
The environmentalists petition to the EPA is just the opening salvo following passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (a.k.a., Green New Deal Lite). The overall mission is forcing increased social control by eliminating free markets. Reducing carbon is a secondary objective and a front. Hyperbole? Take it from the socialism.com: The Green(ish) New Deal.
This next salvo might be targeting industrial electrification: It’s explained in the (just released ) DOE Industrial Decarbonization Roadmap. Along with the Biden Administration’s “electrify everything” mentality, expect more electricity shortages. Consequently, expect more taxpayer derived “emergency” funding directed to the electric utility industry.
“Manufacture a crisis and then don’t let it go to waste.” Maybe that is the plan. A better plan would be for electric utility CEOs to start listening to their engineers responsible for keeping the lights on, affordably if possible, and stop pandering to socialistic environmentalism.
In truth, natural gas utilities and electric utilities need each other. Consumers need energy diversity and utility regulators need to return to their roles as impartial referees and honest brokers safeguarding consumers best interests.
——————————————-
Mark Krebs, a mechanical engineer and energy policy analyst, has been involved with energy efficiency design and program evaluation for more than 30 years. He has served as an expert witness in dozens of State energy efficiency proceedings, has been an advisor to DOE and has submitted scores of Federal energy-efficiency filings.
He has many MasterResource posts on natural gas vs. electricity and “Deep Decarbonization” federal policy.
Mark’s first article was in the Public Utilities Fortnightly and titled “It’s a War Out There: A Gas Man Questions Electric Efficiency” (December 1996).
About the only solution is to vote the yahoos out, and keep them out long enough for that to have an effect.
I’m afraid “voting them out” doesn’t get rid of all the entrenched bureaucratic positions they’ve occupied. I’d suggest something stronger and more thermally active as a better solution.
And the sooner, the better.
The real key to staying free and prosperous is to eliminate the concept of congress delegating lawmaking power. I see no power to create thousands of congresses in the constitution.
Probably. Left to themselves they will, ultimately, control pretty much everything, under the guise of “regulation”.
As far as I am aware, Nixon created the EPA. Presumably with the elected houses concurring. The time may have come for them to undo this work because their real work was largely done, many years ago. They should exist to police existing regulations, not forever producing new ones to police non-existent problems and service job security.
Thanks… But the “only solution”… Is NOT the only solution… We need bold leaders who will take action…
The Environmental peeps are clueless… I’ll bet they don’t even know… Global warming is … Wait for it… A computer simulation… WUWT has details…
They are not clueless that they are a miserable people wanting a return to the stone age it is why they fight good energy sources so much and will litigate endlessly against nuclear power to make it too expensive and too long to build.
I consider them Scum for what they are doing since they are going against the interests of the voter in the process.
What is needed Tom, and I have said this numerous times before, is someone in the White House and/or Congress who has the intestinal fortitude to go on offense against the CAGW narrative and use the available science to discredit and disprove that CO2 and other GHG’s are capable of causing catastrophic runaway warming. Trump had the chance while in office, but he didn’t do it.
In a video from 1996, Dr Carl Sagan warned about the scientific and engineering illiteracy of those in power. And now we are starting the see the consequences of it, especially in Europe.
Sagan’s 1996 interview……
“In a video from 1996, Dr Carl Sagan warned about the scientific and engineering illiteracy of those in power.”
While I have great respect for Dr. Sagan and how he advanced appreciation for the wonders of science across humanity, I have to say he made an understatement in what is quoted above . . . he should have included “and the public” when talking about scientific and engineering illiteracy.
Yes, Dr Sagan may have neglected to include the general public in his response to Charlie Rose’s question, but Charlie mentioned in the NYT article about the survey that the public acknowledges being largely scientifically illiterate.
I acknowledge here that I am not a scientist myself, but I have made considerable effort to educate myself here at WUWT on the scientific problems with the CAGW narrative and wind and solar energy, and I understand them.
CD in Wisconsin
Thank you for your reply to my comment.
I will just observe that if you remain a seeker of truth, and continue educating yourself toward that end and accept The Scientific Method, you certainly qualify for being a scientist—albeit an amateur scientist—but a scientist nonetheless.
How about a national townhall with reps on both sides of the issue to discuss or skeptics having a day in the sun to tell their side of this.
Tom,
I think that this idea was being considered at one time during the Trump years. But for some reason, they decided against it.
There are few, if any, alarmists willing to engage in public debate with knowledgeable skeptics.
There’s gonna be a run on pitchforks and torches. Get yours now while they’re still in stock.
The first step is to repeal the 17th Amendment.
A quick scan through the link to the Petition turns up a gish gallop of talking points that we’ve all seen before.
From Saul Alinsky’s 13 Tried and True Rules for Radicals (ref: https://www.openculture.com/2017/02/13-rules-for-radicals.html ):
8. “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.
9. “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
Sooo… The EPA can provide technical assistance about … Stuff… Thanks for the advice… But I have advice for you…
F’you…
My entire house heats and cooks with gas… Hot water base-board heating is… EXCELLENT… Stove-top and oven are fast and efficient… Clothes dried with gas or hang outside… I do NOT even have 220 V circuits in my house…
Good advise to the EPA, Rusty.
This morning it was 48F outside and I wondered if I would need to turn on my furnace. Instead besides pants, etc., a long sleeve polypropylene and polyester based shirt, jeans and slippers of synthetic materials and soles are helping me to stay warm.
Alas, my feet are a little cold but I’m secure in knowing that natural gas is available for heat if I need it.
Your house is actually a marvel of energy efficiency, almost no convective loss, probably 6” of insulation in the walls and a foot on the ceiling……probably your furnace only burns the equivalent of a couple of pounds of wood per hour. Any outdoor camper will tell you that is very minimal fuel consumption.
your retrofit bill will be larger than some others that are not so primitive.
When will everyone understand that the Federal government is so large, so powerful, and has much broadly written legislative & regulatory authority that its real motto is : We can do whatever we want.
Until and unless government is reduced in size, scope, authority to what it was the day before Wilson was inaugurated there is no hope for improvement.
Expansion of power, increase in corporate corruption, decline in the general standard of living are the goals of government now.
I think you overestimate the power of the federal government. They cannot ban natural gas from homes as there is no alternative for cooking and heating with the current grid. They may be able to make proclamations and even some laws, but the People will not just obey. That is why the 2nd Amendment is so important. And yes, if you ban natural gas it will come to that.
I think you are underestimating the power of the government. They can ban natural gas at the source. It doesn’t matter if you will not obey if the resource is not available.
You have to realize that the people pushing this crap don’t care what happens to you or humanity.
We must vote in strong leaders that have practical knowledge of the real world, not professional politicians that wouldn’t know a good idea if it kicked them in the head.
If you want to make a difference, do whatever you can to educate your fellow citizens and get involved in making sure elections are fairly operated.
The 2nd Amendment is for dealing with criminals or other threats to life and liberty.
Is not forcing a decline in standard of living and taking away choices not covered by the quote?
Some things are open for interpretation.
Let your conscience be your guide.
They don’t ban directly. They just inform that if the states don’t ban, then the federal government will stop all federal payments in that state.
Via ‘Dear Colleague’ letters.
55 MPH speed limits under Carter.
“It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of Light,
it was the season of Darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us, …”
Miserable people who’s win is to make everyone else as miserable.
If we have to abandon gas for heating, the Canada will have to be evacuated.
I think the object is to get a large portion of humanity evacuated to the graveyard.
The bodies might be used to solve the fertilizer problem. Remember the fish that used to be buried with each corn seed?
Unfortunately, you are absolutely correct.
Never assume that stupidity is the only problem. Sheer malice is in plain sight. If nothing else is clear from the zero carbon and zero covid plans, it is obvious that an enormous reduction in population is the objective.
Someone should point out to these idiots that burning gas for space heating is much, much more efficient than burning gas for electricity.
They don’t care. Gas bad electric good cuz gas makes carbon emissions is the level of thinking here
did you miss the part where the electric utilities want home gas banned so they can have the gas for themselves?
The goal is to ban burning gas for electricity as well.
In their minds, all power should come from wind and solar.
As the idiot Janet Yellen, the US TREASURY Secretary just said.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/09/09/janet-yellen-united-states-must-look-wind-sun-energy-not-oil-gas/
You can’t make this up.
BUT, Joe, in his first days in office, directed the whole of the executive branch to get to working on the Climate Change agenda.
The entrenched deep state leftists already had their plans in place.
They’ll have to pry my gas range, furnace, water heater and fireplace form my cold dead hands. Which, I believe, was their plan all along.
They will just cut off your supply.
Their plan is to get a large portion of the population to net zero.
If you’re dead, your using zero energy.
A lot of good all those gas appliances will be when they shot off the gas supply.
If they shut off the supply, look for deforestation on a scale not seen in this country since early colonial days….somebody makes it so I can’t buy heating oil (or propane), guess what – I’ll be looking to my 2 heavily wooded acres! I don’t use my wood stove, but I will if I have to.
Yes. And the cold dead hands bit is their central objective.
i have said it before and i will say it again. the epa is the most destructive government agency towards our way of life.
as far as a solution to all government bureaucracies, any law rule or regulation proposed by government that touches a u.s. citizen must be voted up or down by the congress.
here is a simple example.
epa proposes 50 mpg fleet average. congress must debate that specific and vote up or down. that’s how it used to be. un elected gov workers don’t get to make rules.
also, the number of un elected government employees must be capped. i don’t know what that number is but way less than it is now.
ban all public sector unions. if you work for government, the tax payer is your union steward.
repeal epa authority.
here is another one. all heads of all law enforcement (city, township, county, state police) must be elected by the people. not appointed.
if you receive income from taxes, fines or fees, you work for us, the citizens collectively.
I also think that any income from fees, fines or taxes should go directly to the appropriate central government rather than the department collecting said income. I’m thinking of the conflict of interest when police forces keep the money from ‘civil’ forfeiture or the NIH keeping royalty money from their part ownership of the Moderna Covid vaccine.
To simplify, all law enforcement in a county must answer directly to the elected County Sheriff. No private or corporate police forces. All cities and townships must provide additional moneys to the Sheriff Department to cover the budget for providing the extra Sheriff’s Deputies to cover the crime in said cities and townships.
It needs to be easier to fire government workers who are actively opposing the will of the current administration.
There’s hope: Schedule F
https://brownstone.org/articles/the-astonishing-implications-of-schedule-f/
Alas Biden torched it almost immediately:
Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforcehttps://www.whitehouse.gov › Presidential Actions
Jan 22, 2021 — Sec. 2. Revocation of Schedule F. (a) The creation of a new Schedule F excepted service category in Executive Order 13957 of October 21, 2020
I suspect it also applies to restaurant kitchens, which would effectively put them out of business, there is no way you can cook on electricity in a commercial kitchen
correct, but the french laundry will be given and exemption.
The government of The United States of America is already in the business of telling its citizens what kind of shower head they must buy and what kind of light bulb they may buy.
The government of the state of California is now in the business of telling its citizens what kind of automobile they may or may not buy. The climate commissars are hellbent on extending that automobile mandate to the rest of The United States.
…and now, on the pretext of the evidence-light, catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change CONJECTURE, the jackbooted, dimwitted b*stards want to mandate how we cook and heat our homes?
Bugger off.
The Federal government telling anyone what type of car or light bulb to buy is unconstitutional over reach, however state governments can regulate just about anything.
The point of the founder’s federalism was that people could vote with their feet and move to a state that better suited their individual sensibilities.
The federal government portioning out income taxes, both personal and corporate, to the states with strings attached is a coercive abuse of OUR tax monies and almost every program that spreads federal money around is unconstitutional.
Simple fixes using “reconciliation” legislative technique the Democrat’s have abused to pass their partial Green New Deal:
Eliminate the IRS and implement the Fair Tax. Upon the elimination of the IRS, leak all tax returns of every Democrat politician and those that run all of the Leftist non-profits, Planned Parenthood, etc. After the leaks are completed, destroy all other tax records and pardon the leakers.
Institute a 80% reduction of the deepstate in the DC area such layoffs to be determined by the newly appointed conservative appointees of the new president, irrespective of seniority.
Outlaw unions for federal employees, or for ANY company that does more than 50% of its business with the federal government, think defense contractors.
Require any highway construction contractor to warrant their roads for 15 years from date of the completion of the contract. If the contract is let through State governments, the state shall be responsible for 100% of the maintenance for that 15 years. BTW, the “interstate system was “constitutional” because it was for DEFENSE purposes. Any blockage of an interstate highway to be cleared by national guard with those obstructing the highway charged in federal court under marshal law provisions, with trial in military courts.
Eliminate the Dept of Education with the funds to be distributed directly to parents of students who are US citizens or legal US residents only. No restrictions for what schools can receive the funds, and the funds also available to the parents for home schooling. The requirement of 50% not allowed to be unionized also applies to schools.
Many more.
And, California also prohibits the sale of firearms that don’t meet their impossible requirements.
Regarding the above article’s reference to climate alarmists seeking to ban the use of natural gas inside buildings (thereby forcing the sole use of electricity for residential and industrial heating and cooking):
the wonk alarmists don’t want anyone to look at the evidence coming out of the entire state of California, where both the electrical grid and sources of electrical energy have been stretched to their limits by the nearly month-long heat wave there.
Sure, let’s just pile on terrawatt-hours of more electrical demand by refusing to use abundant natural gas at the user end-point . . . and in the process forcing electrical generation power stations to increase at least the equivalent in their use of natural gas.
The stupidity . . . it burns!
in my small town, i can be fined and imprisoned for having a small ground fire to burn off the remnants of my vegetable garden, which improves the soil for next spring. unless i stick a hot dog on a skewer and prop it up over the flames, then they can’t touch me because i am cooking, at least not yet. all these ordinances are imposed by bureaucracy, never voted on by the people.
they wont ban your gas range, they will cut off the damn gas to your house.
sorry gordon, not meant as a reply to you.
Burning yard waste is also illegal in Sarasota County, Florida. Unless, as you state, you are cooking. I also keep a hotdog on a stick during burning. But the reason for the law is not to protect you, it is to protect others from people who do stupid stuff, like letting a yard fire blow hot ashes onto other people’s property.
If they want to stop indoor and outdoor pollution that is as “bad” as natural gas, basically any form of combustion, then they must ban all fireplaces, barbecue grills, open fires, or even cooking for that matter. Since it is well known that indoor air quality is worse than outdoors, they must require that all homes and businesses have opening windows and remove window and door seals for better air circulation. I think everyone should be fine with that. After all, forget the grandchildren, we’re saving the earth. (Do I really need a sarc tag?)
Environmentalists are invited to go first by sleeping in cozy, sealed plastic bags.
Here in SE Michigan, we use natural gas only for our furnace.
Electricity for hot water, stove and clothes dryer
If it was even possible to have electric heat retrofitted, which would be impossible, the electricity would come from 57% coal (DTE Energy)
Which would mean more CO2 emissions.
As we get closer to the endgame, it’s becoming clearer what the endgame actually is. And it’s not a pretty sight.
Nothing will improve until the people determine who is elected.
I heat water, my house and cook with natural gas. If eliminated, I would need to retrofit my entire house to electric along with all my appliances. I’m not the only one of course. So the waste of all these resources and their replacements must be figured into the cost of the solution of eliminating methane as a fuel source to save the world. I am not convinced that this solution accomplishes anything in reducing the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Doonman
“I am not convinced that this solution accomplishes anything in reducing the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Absolutely right.
Even if it did, is Plant Food a problem?
Surely ‘Plant Food Good!!’
Auto
The power grid is already over-stressed as it is. But for all of us to trade in our gas ranges, our gas furnaces, and our gas water heaters with electric ones will cause the power grid to collapse.
And guess where that extra electricity will come from? In all likelihood, natural gas powered generating plants.
No, this isn’t about protecting the environment. Its all about giving a bunch of sociopathic narcissists control over our lives.
I would not characterize The Conversation as an “academic law journal.” It is more of a liberal propaganda outlet where the writers are mostly academics.
You’re probably right. However, I was directing fire towards where it is needed the most; the electric utility industry who is enabling socialistic environmentalism.
The IRA rebate program will pay 100% of the cost of electric appliances in many new buildings even if gas appliances are illegal. The ultimate free rider! Get paid for obeying the law.
See my https://www.cfact.org/2022/09/08/free-stuff-from-the-inflation-reduction-act-discriminates-against-the-poor/
But it discriminates against the poor along the way. Truly nuts.
Thanks for the insight in your article. Please make the same comments at MasterResource.
As for a bias against the poor, I’m not sure it was accidental exploitation. IMO, more likely “par for the course.”
“Science is the belief in the Ignorance of Experts.” Richard Feynman
Example: Covid policy, Natural Gas policy
Greens to petition for ban on humans
If people cannot use gas to cook and heat their homes, they will take their axes to the forest, fell trees, and burn wood at home, just like Drax. Another Great Idea,
Time to abolish the EPA.
If gas is burned in a power plant to make electricity…and the electricity is used for home or business heating…then you are going to lose 40% of the energy in the generation process, even with modern CCGT turbines..probably considerably worse, on the average. You’re going to lose another 10% or so in transmission and distribution. It seems quite likely that *more* natural gas is used in a gas>electricity>heat scenario than with a direct gas>heat system.
There is no social cost of carbon. Period.
It is not $1 under Trump or $51 under Biden.
It is nil.
Justice Alsup established in his famous decision in Cal. v BP and others that the benefits of the fossil fuels over the last few hundred years outweighed the “ damages” by a factor of plenty.
There is a social benefit of carbon dioxide.
Further the US Supreme Court got it wrong in Massachusetts v. EPA (5/4) in holding that CO2 is a pollutant.
Only in California could a bumble bee be determined to be a fish under the Fishing Regulations by a Federal Court relying on the wide definition of a fish which includes invertebrates.
Strictly the Court is right but lawyers tend to put wide definitions in legislation.
Same result as for the Clean Air Act.
There are approximately 12,000,000 housing units in the state of California.. If all were converted to electric heat it would require about 192 gigawatts of additional power generation to meet the demand. Assuming an average of 50,000 btuh. to heat the average dwelling unit, 50,000/3.1414=16,000 watts or 16 kw.. * 12m=192,000,000 kw or 192 gigawatts. Or something like that.. This also does not include gas water heaters, or cooking appliances… Even if my calculation is off a little, I think you get the point.. And the point is…. These people are nuts!!!…
Democrats creating more inequity. Think poor people can afford these high costs. Nope, they can’t. But Democrats are OK with that if it pushes their green agenda forward – with hopes of more control of the populace.
As I said in a lengthy comment to the original Patrick Parenteau WUWT article from two weeks ago, I predict that the EPA will use wording contained in the Inflation Reduction Act as a backdoor justification for using the Clean Air Act Section 108 NAAQS process for adding CO2, methane, and other alleged GHG’s to the list of criteria pollutants.
The environmental law community has been promoting the NAAQS approach for fifteen years or more as the most effective way to regulate America’s carbon emissions.
Because CO2 is a well-mixed gas on a world-wide scale, using the NAAQS approach for regulating CO2 wouldn’t seem to make logical sense. However, that issue is neither here nor there as far as the Biden administration is concerned. They will do whatever they think they have to do to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel in America.
The ultimate result of the Biden administration’s Net Zero policy is that we will all be paying more money for the privilege of using less energy.
Thanks for the additional insight. It’s another example why WUWT is #1 for what it does.
They came for nuclear, then coal, and then oil. But who could have seen this coming, opposing NG. IN the seventies US, the feds said we would run out of NG at those goalposts out there in the eighties, and they managed to prohibit builders from putting NG supply in new developments. In the nineties, high electric bills drove home owners to wish NG was available. This very mistake was made before, in living memory. And it’s now funded.
Over the last few weeks I have noticed that at least one natural gas company in my State is promoting the use of natural gas to home owners and offering $100 payments to anyone who switches to natural gas.
I was wondering what the impetus for this was now. I don’t know that it is connected to anything the EPA is proposing.
I was attending a couple of different conferences in the past 2 months. Both of them had ‘industry leaders’ and government officials (USA) as a major contributor and both of them pushed the idea of ‘Electrification’ of all buildings. Essentially only allowing electricity as the means of energy delivered to buildings. One DOE employee, who is a director of loan programs, went so far as to say that the government should not provide any development loans unless the building was net-zero, only electric, and had local renewable generation.