Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 14, 2011, 05:19:30 AM
-
US axes permit for Arch's giant mountain coalmine [West Virginia: Obama's EPA]
Reuters ^ | January 13, 2011 | Timothy Gardner
________________________ ________________________ ____
The Obama administration revoked a permit on Thursday for Arch Coal Inc's (ACI.N) proposed Spruce 1 mountaintop coal mine in West Virginia, effectively shutting one of the biggest in the United States. "The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend," said Peter Silvan, an assistant administrator for water, at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's final ruling under the Clean Water Act came after a scientific study, a public hearing, and a review of more than 50,000 public comments, the agency said. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had approved a permit for the mine in 2007, but it had not been fully constructed.
Lawmakers from West Virginia said the EPA's move would hurt the state's economy. "Today's EPA decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country's history," Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, said in a release. Senator Jay Rockefeller, also a Democrat, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, that said: "as a nation we must not fall into the trap of forcing unnecessary choices between protecting the environment and having good paying jobs that support energy independence." St. Louis-based Arch said it would vigorously defend the permit in court. EPA's revocation of the permit blocks an additional $250 million in investment and 250 jobs, the company said. It was the latest move by the Obama administration to crack down on mountaintop mining, in which companies blast high peaks to uncover coal seams and often toss the resulting rubble into valleys....
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
-
The idiots in Kentucky voted for the Democrat who at first supported Obama doing this.....then "changed his mind" when he realized it was political suicide. Can't belive the people there were suckered by that garbage.
-
This is our wonderful POFSPOTUS.
-
Ha ha ha ha - Can you really believe morons bought into this trash?
-
I never saw this clip before. Listen to this lying snake - heis admitting his goals is to drive up the cost of energy for every for everyone.
Great job obamabots. ::) ::)
-
"The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend," said Peter Silvan, an assistant administrator for water, at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's final ruling under the Clean Water Act came after a scientific study, a public hearing, and a review of more than 50,000 public comments, the agency said.
Did you read this part?
-
What about clean coal technologies.?..I recall hearing so much about these from Obama during the campaign for president....
-
Yeah ok Blacken. The EPA will say anything to justify its decisions. So again, just admit you are ok with more people losing their jobs and livilhoods. .
-
What about clean coal technologies.?..I recall hearing so much about these from Obama during the campaign for president....
It was bogus lies from obama to justify his job/economy/nation killing policies.
-
It was bogus lies from obama to justify his job/economy/nation killing policies.
I haven't heard anything about clean coal technologies since the election..It's just funny some of the promises Obama broke...The man is a serial liar.
-
I haven't heard anything about clean coal technologies since the election..It's just funny some of the promises Obama broke...The man is a serial liar/JOB KILLER.
FIXED
-
-
BUMP
-
where does he "promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
where does he "promise to destroy jobs"
::)
-
where does he "promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
where does he "promise to destroy jobs"
::)
His entire agenda is a intened to collapse jobs.
-
His entire agenda is a intened to collapse jobs.
show me were he promises to destroy jobs.
::)
-
Capito said she will write a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking whether the agency took into account the economic impact of its regulations.
"Let me be clear, it’s decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said Manchin, an outspoken critic of the EPA.
But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are “reasonable, common-sense and achievable.”
The agency also stressed that the regulations are essential for protecting public health.
“These reasonable steps taken under the Clean Air Act will reduce harmful air pollution, including mercury, arsenic and other toxic pollution, and as a result protect our families, particularly children,” EPA said in a statement.
In a statement outlining its plan to comply with EPA's regulations, AEP said it would need to retire 6,000 megawatts of coal-fired power generation in the coming years.
The company, one of the country’s largest electric utilities, estimated that it will cost between $6 billion and $8 billion in capital investments over the next decade to comply with the regulations in their current form.
The costs of complying with the regulations will result in an increase in electricity prices of 10 to 35 percent and cost 600 jobs, AEP said.
In total, AEP estimated it will have to close five coal-fired power plants by the end of 2014. Six additional plants would see major changes, including retiring some generating units, retrofitting equipment and switching to natural gas.
“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies,” AEP CEO Michael Morris said in a statement.
The company said its compliance plan could “change significantly” if EPA’s regulations are altered.
-
blah blah blah ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go!
-
where does he "promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
where does he "promise to destroy jobs"
::)
That was an idiotic 240esque response. See if you can put it together.
-
That was an idiotic 240esque response. See if you can put it together.
OK George, maybe you can show me where "Obama promises to bankrupt the coal industry"
Sorry if i don't just fall for the obvious gay ass spin designed to breed anger based on an incorrect premise in that Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry.
::)
-
OK George, maybe you can show me where "Obama promises to bankrupt the coal industry"
Sorry if i don't just fall for the obvious gay ass spin designed to breed anger based on an incorrect premise in that Obama never promised to bankrupt the coal industry.
::)
Ha ha ha. Man you have become an Obama loon lately. Watch the damn clip!
-
don't argue with 3333, he doesn't admit when he's wrong and he resorts to name calling and posting photoshopped pictures
I think he's an isolated obsessive person with violent tendencies who has a distorted perception on reality, most likely paranoia.
-
don't argue with 3333, he doesn't admit when he's wrong and he resorts to name calling and posting photoshopped pictures
I think he's an isolated obsessive person with violent tendencies who has a distorted perception on reality, most likely paranoia.
::) ::)
Another fool who didn't even watch Obama in his own words.
-
Ha ha ha. Man you have become an Obama loon lately. Watch the damn clip!
Failure.
Watch the clip is all you got. ::)
-
Failure.
Watch the clip is all you got. ::)
The clips of Obama in his own words speak for themselves.
-
The clips of Obama in his own words speak for themselves.
and his own words say: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry. ::)
sorry 33333, you are brainwashed with your own bull shit.
-
and his own words say: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry. ::)
sorry 33333, you are brainwashed with your own bull shit.
He says his plans will result in their bankruptcy. Do you need it spelled out any clearer for you?
-
He says his plans will result in their bankruptcy. Do you need it spelled out any clearer for you?
NO that's not what he said.
Try again. :P
-
Noone gives a shit. Do something with your life instead of posting about politics on a bodybuilding forum.
-
NO that's not what he said.
Try again. :P
What do you think he said.
-
What do you think he said.
I know he didn't make a promise to bankrupt the coal industry.
How about the General Motors? Did he make any promises about them? :)
-
I know he didn't make a promise to bankrupt the coal industry.
How about the General Motors? Did he make any promises about them? :)
Not like he did to jack energy costs and put the coal industry out of business.
-
Not like he did to jack energy costs and put the coal industry out of business.
Who's buys power from coal? Is it their choice?
-
AEP to close plants, trim 600 jobs to comply with EPA rules
By staff report
Published June 10th, 2011
http://www.timesnews.net/print_article.php?id=9032750
________________________ ________________________ _________
American Electric Power on Thursday announced it plans to shut down several coal-fired power plants, convert or retrofit others, and cut as many as 600 jobs in the next few years to comply with regulations proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Based on the proposed regulations, AEP will have to retire nearly 6,000 megawatts of coalfueled power generation; upgrade or install new advanced emissions reduction equipment on another 10,100 megawatts; refuel 1,070 megawatts of coal generation as 932 megawatts of natural gas capacity; and build 1,220 megawatts of natural gas-fueled generation.
The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6 billion to $8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade. The company said high demand for labor and materials due to a constrained compliance time frame could drive actual costs higher than these estimates.
AEP said the plan, including retirements, could change significantly depending on the final form of the EPA regulations and regulatory approvals from state commissions.
The retirements and retrofits in the plan are in addition to more than $7.2 billion that AEP has invested since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fueled generation fleet, according to the c o m p a n y.
Annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from AEP plants are 80 percent lower today than in 1990. Sulfur dioxide emissions from AEP plants are 73 percent lower than in 1990.
The company currently owns nearly 25,000 megawatts of coalfueled generation, approximately 65 percent of its total generating capacity. Coal would fuel approximately 57 percent of AEP’s total generating capacity by the end of the decade.
“We support regulations that achieve long-term environmental benefits while protecting customers, the economy and the reliability of the electric grid, but the cumulative impacts of the EPA’s current regulatory path have been vastly underestimated, particularly in Midwest states dependent on coal to fuel their economies,” said Michael G. Morris, AEP chairman and CEO.
He said AEP has worked for months to develop a compliance plan that will mitigate the impact of the EPA rules for customers and preserve jobs, “but because of the unrealistic compliance timelines in the EPA proposals, we will have to prematurely shut down nearly 25 percent of our current coal-fueled generating capacity, cut hundreds of good power plant jobs, and invest billions of dollars in capital to retire, retrofit and replace coalfueled power plants.”
“The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,” Morris said.
Although some jobs would be created from the installation of emissions reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of approximately 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million.
“We are deeply concerned about the impact of the proposed regulations on our customers and local economies. Communities that have depended on these plants to provide good jobs and support local services will face significant reductions in payroll and property taxes in a very short period of time.
“The economic impact will extend far beyond direct employment at power plants as thousands of ancillary jobs are supported by every coal-fueled generating unit. Businesses that have benefited from reasonably priced coal-fueled power will face the impact of electricity price increases ranging from 10 percent to more than 35 percent just for compliance with these environmental rules at a time when they are still trying to recover from the economic downturn,” Morris said.
He said the proposed timelines for compliance aren’t adequate for construction of significant retrofits or replacement generation, “so many coal-fueled plants would be prematurely retired or idled in just a few years.”
Morris said AEP hopes that the EPA recognizes the impact of the proposed rules and develops a “more reasonable” compliance schedule.
“We also will continue talking with lawmakers in Washington about a legislative approach that would achieve the same longterm environmental goals with less negative impact on jobs and the U.S. economy,” he said.
“With more time and flexibility, we will get to the same level of emission reductions, but it will cost our customers less and will prevent premature job losses, extend the construction job benefits, and ensure the ongoing reliability of the electric system.”
As part of AEP’s current plan, the company would permanently retire five plants — one in Virginia, three in West Virginia and one in Ohio.
AEP would retire units at other locations but continue operating some generation at those sites with retrofits or conversions to natural gas.
The nearest plant to be impacted is the Clinch River Plant in Cleveland, Va.
There, one unit would be shut down by Dec. 31, 2014, while two others would be converted to natural gas generation.
Based in Columbus, Ohio, American Electric Power is one of the largest electric utilities in the United States, delivering electricity to more than 5 million customers in 11 states. Appalachian Power, serving Virginia and the Kingsport area of Tennessee, is a utility unit of the c o m p a n y.
-
Positive!
Coal must go!
-
Positive!
Coal must go!
According you so must the jobs and livihoods of thousands of workers and their families.
Nice.
-
According you so must the jobs and livihoods of thousands of workers and their families.
Nice.
Should we have bailed out Chrysler and GM or not?
-
Should we have bailed out Chrysler and GM or not?
No. It should have went Chapter 11 and let a receiver be appointed and let new owners buy up the assets and take over.
-
No. It should have went Chapter 11 and let a receiver be appointed and let new owners buy up the assets and take over.
Yeah and that would have avoided ten of thousands being layer off? Doubt it.
The problem with the coal industry aside from pollution issues, mine cave ins etc. Is that it's a outdated form of energy. Just like musket making for example, it's time to move on. That's not going to be with out casualties.
This country needs to expand nuclear energy. It's ok to push some of the green shit, but really, the best bang for our buck is nuclear.
-
OK George, maybe you can show me where "Obama promises to bankrupt the coal industry"
Sorry if i don't just fall for the obvious gay ass spin designed to breed anger based on an incorrect premise in that Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry.
::)
Ok moron. Let's do a comparison with the following quotes-- " I am going to initiate something that will result in your death." Is that the same thing as saying "I am going to kill you." ? Not technically. But any fucking idiot can connect the dots. Do you only think that someone means what they say when they repeat verbatim the exact same words that explicitly define their intent? Stop attempting to morph into 240. This board already has a resident retard.
Obama said unequivocally that no more coal plants can be built without bankrupting the company who built it. That means the industry can no longer expand. That means less jobs. Throw in the fact that the absurdly intrusive regulation measures Obama has enacted on coal since he took office have strangled productivity and increased the production costs for the entire industry. Only a fool could possibly think Obama was not intentionally trying to destroy coal. For good measure, the cap and trade system he desperately tried to enact ( which thankfully failed) would have "skyrocketed" energy costs-- That is a quote right from his own mouth. Meanwhile, Obama attempts to push his blatantly useless green jobs agenda bullshit, wind tunnels built in swamps on other galaxies and turbines powered by hamsters on wheels-- What do you think is the sum total of these ass backward job killing policies?
-
Ok moron. Let's do a comparison with the following quotes-- " I am going to initiate something that will result in your death." Is that the same thing as saying "I am going to kill you." ? Not technically. But any fucking idiot can connect the dots. Do you only think that someone means what they say when they repeat verbatim the exact same words that explicitly define their intent? Stop attempting to morph into 240. This board already has a resident retard.
Obama said unequivocally that no more coal plants can be built without bankrupting the company who built it. That means the industry can no longer expand. That means less jobs. Throw in the fact that the absurdly intrusive regulation measures Obama has enacted on coal since he took office have strangled productivity and increased the production costs for the entire industry. Only a fool could possibly think Obama was not intentionally trying to destroy coal. For good measure, the cap and trade system he desperately tried to enact ( which thankfully failed) would have "skyrocketed" energy costs-- That is a quote right from his own mouth. Meanwhile, Obama attempts to push his blatantly useless green jobs agenda bullshit, wind tunnels built in swamps on other galaxies and turbines powered by hamsters on wheels-- What do you think is the sum total of these ass backward job killing policies?
Obama says clearly that he is enacting a plan that will make it impossible for EXISTING coal companies to operate due to the yearly ratcheting down of emissions standars and regulations. He then also says clearly - that any new companies who want to build a coal plant will go bankrupt doing so by design.
What the fuck is so hard for your to understand Ozmo?
-
Ok moron. Let's do a comparison with the following quotes-- " I am going to initiate something that will result in your death." Is that the same thing as saying "I am going to kill you." ? Not technically. But any fucking idiot can connect the dots. Do you only think that someone means what they say when they repeat verbatim the exact same words that explicitly define their intent? Stop attempting to morph into 240. This board already has a resident retard.
Obama said unequivocally that no more coal plants can be built without bankrupting the company who built it. That means the industry can no longer expand. That means less jobs. Throw in the fact that the absurdly intrusive regulation measures Obama has enacted on coal since he took office have strangled productivity and increased the production costs for the entire industry. Only a fool could possibly think Obama was not intentionally trying to destroy coal. For good measure, the cap and trade system he desperately tried to enact ( which thankfully failed) would have "skyrocketed" energy costs-- That is a quote right from his own mouth. Meanwhile, Obama attempts to push his blatantly useless green jobs agenda bullshit, wind tunnels built in swamps on other galaxies and turbines powered by hamsters on wheels-- What do you think is the sum total of these ass backward job killing policies?
No George, ::) its a spin job plain and simple. Obama has made ZERO promises to bankrupt the coal industry. He simply said that anyone that wants to build a new coal plant can but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a large sum.....
And I am glad he is doing it. The industry shouldn't expand.
-
No George, ::) its a spin job plain and simple. Obama has made ZERO promises to bankrupt the coal industry. He simply said that anyone that wants to build a new coal plant can but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a large sum.....
And I am glad he is doing it. The industry shouldn't expand.
Goo - than take ownership for the horrible economy, lost jobs, lost productivity, collapsing economy, collapsing manufacturing, offshoring of all productionetc.
You green zealots own this bullshit.
-
Goo - than take ownership for the horrible economy, lost jobs, lost productivity, collapsing economy, collapsing manufacturing, offshoring of all productionetc.
You green zealots own this bullshit.
Weak sauce ::)
-
Weak sauce ::)
AEP disagrees along with the 600 families no longer with a paycheck due to your messiahs' communist plans.
-
AEP disagrees along with the 600 families no longer with a paycheck due to your messiahs' communist plans.
::)
-
AEP disagrees along with the 600 families no longer with a paycheck due to your messiahs' communist plans.
Well, what about tens of thousands of people who lost here jobs because GM and Chrysler weren't bailed out?
-
Well, what about tens of thousands of people who lost here jobs because GM and Chrysler weren't bailed out?
You mean UAW employees who would have have to take concessions by a new owner if it went through bankruptcy according to exiting Federal Law?
Seriously? You are ging all 240 lately Ozmo.
-
You mean UAW employees who would have have to take concessions by a new owner if it went through bankruptcy according to exiting Federal Law?
Seriously? You are ging all 240 lately Ozmo.
Concessions? ::)
Tens of thousands would have been laid off all across the industry.
Coal needs to be phased out period. People will lose jobs, that what happens when industry progresses. It's the year 2011, not 1911.
-
Concessions? ::)
Tens of thousands would have been laid off all across the industry.
Coal needs to be phased out period. People will lose jobs, that what happens when industry progresses. It's the year 2011, not 1911.
Progress does not usualy man having the govt point a gunto your head unless you support a communist state.
-
Progress does not usualy man having the govt point a gunto your head unless you support a communist state.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
In this case, discouraging the expansion the coal industry is a good first step into phasing it out.
I do agree, that perhaps my point may be a bit unrealistic given the quagmire of the countries government, green freaks, and EPA nazis, but the thinking is sound. Nuclear energy is the way to go.
-
US axes permit for Arch's giant mountain coalmine [West Virginia: Obama's EPA]
Reuters ^ | January 13, 2011 | Timothy Gardner
________________________ ________________________ ____
The Obama administration revoked a permit on Thursday for Arch Coal Inc's (ACI.N) proposed Spruce 1 mountaintop coal mine in West Virginia, effectively shutting one of the biggest in the United States. "The proposed Spruce No. 1 Mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend," said Peter Silvan, an assistant administrator for water, at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA's final ruling under the Clean Water Act came after a scientific study, a public hearing, and a review of more than 50,000 public comments, the agency said. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had approved a permit for the mine in 2007, but it had not been fully constructed.
Lawmakers from West Virginia said the EPA's move would hurt the state's economy. "Today's EPA decision is not just fundamentally wrong, it is an unprecedented act by the federal government that will cost our state and our nation even more jobs during the worst recession in this country's history," Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat, said in a release. Senator Jay Rockefeller, also a Democrat, wrote a letter to President Barack Obama, that said: "as a nation we must not fall into the trap of forcing unnecessary choices between protecting the environment and having good paying jobs that support energy independence." St. Louis-based Arch said it would vigorously defend the permit in court. EPA's revocation of the permit blocks an additional $250 million in investment and 250 jobs, the company said. It was the latest move by the Obama administration to crack down on mountaintop mining, in which companies blast high peaks to uncover coal seams and often toss the resulting rubble into valleys....
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
:15 - :24 - Obama: "I will implement a cap & trade plan more agressive than anyone else." Already said under his plan electric and energy rates will "SKYROCKET." Cap & Trade already has resulted i drastically higher energy costs anywhere and everywhere it ever was tried.
:25 - :35 - Calls for 100% auction. That means draconian costs and targeting of coal for extinction as other sources will get preference for emissions. So other sources will get favortism by the government while coal is targeted for extinction.
:36 - :50 - Says whatever energy plants that do exist have to meet the mandates of the market that the govt creates. Talk about an oxymoron, but that is besides the point. the market that obama plans on creating is own where it is impossible for coal to exist. SO HE IS TRYING TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR COAL COMPANIES TO EXIST!
:51 - 1:00 - Says that govt is going to yearly ratchet down emissions standards to where no coal company could possibly meet it and if they did they would go bankrupt in the process. CLEAR ON ITS FACE.
1:00 - 1:07 - says that existing companies will be charged a huge amount for any coal emissions emitted to the point its crippling. AGAIN - CLEAR AS DAY.
-
No, 333333 he does not in any of the those clips say: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
-
No, 333333 he does not in any of the those clips say: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
No, its a real big difference as saying "i will implement a plan making it impossible for existing coal plants to operate and new ones to form" ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
No, its a real big difference as saying "i will implement a plan making it impossible for existing coal plants to operate and new ones to form" ::) ::) ::) ::)
What he said (according to you) was: "I will implement a cap & trade plan more agressive than anyone else."
He did not say "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry."
-
What he said (according to you) was: "I will implement a cap & trade plan more agressive than anyone else."
He did not say "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry."
That was one of the thngs he said, among the others, which included implementing plans making impossible for existing coal plants to operate due to regulations anad mandates he wants to impose as well as makingit impossible for any new plants to be built.
Stop playing word games and parsing words, the sum and substance of his statements are clear as day. Make it impossible for existing coals companies to operate and bankrupt any companies trying to build new plants.
-
President Romeny will convince repubs to buy into his renamed Cap/Trade plan,
You know this, mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.....
Did you hear him deeply explaining the need to control emissions? He really buys into this shit. This isn't palin in 2008, just rambling and nodding along with Qs she didn't understand. This was Mitt in 2011 MAKING THE CASE for the need to limit man's pollution.
Cap/Trade. Just like he sold romneycare. 33, you voting mitt again? ;)
-
That was one of the thngs he said, among the others, which included implementing plans making impossible for existing coal plants to operate due to regulations anad mandates he wants to impose as well as makingit impossible for any new plants to be built.
Stop playing word games and parsing words, the sum and substance of his statements are clear as day. Make it impossible for existing coals companies to operate and bankrupt any companies trying to build new plants.
Bro, words games is what YOU are playing when you claim "Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry."
A more accurate (non spun) assertion would be: "Obama intends to diminish (reduce, phase out etc.) the coal industry with his policies"
Also, all that's going to happen is, energy cost will increase (skyrocket). Coal power plants will still exist until they can be replaced.
My major assertion here is that coal should be phased out over a period of years.
Bush at least got some of the restrictions on Nuclear power weakened but we have a long way to go.
I am not for Obama here necessarily (although I was f-ing around to get your goat at times on these threads). I don't know that the way Obama is doing it is best.
-
Bro, words games is what YOU are playing when you claim "Obama promised to bankrupt the coal industry."
A more accurate (non spun) assertion would be: "Obama intends to diminish (reduce, phase out etc.) the coal industry with his policies"
Also, all that's going to happen is, energy cost will increase (skyrocket). Coal power plants will still exist until they can be replaced.
My major assertion here is that coal should be phased out over a period of years.
Bush at least got some of the restrictions on Nuclear power weakened but we have a long way to go.
I am not for Obama here necessarily (although I was f-ing around to get your goat at times on these threads). I don't know that the way Obama is doing it is best.
No - he specifically uses the words bankrupt
-
No - he specifically uses the words bankrupt
In the context of new coal plants.
-
In the context of new coal plants.
And he said he is going to implement rules and mandates on existing companies via his "carbon market" that make it impossible for them to operate.
-
And he said he is going to implement rules and mandates on existing companies via his "carbon market" that make it impossible for them to operate.
No, because they can't NOT operate. As he said the cost will skyrocket. People don't usually, at least were i live, have much of a choice where they get there power from.
-
No, because they can't NOT operate. As he said the cost will skyrocket. People don't usually, at least were i live, have much of a choice where they get there power from.
And if the govt mandates costs and regulations that cant be met under any circumatances, what happens?
THEY GO BANKRUPT AND OUT OF BUSINESS.
-
And if the govt mandates costs and regulations that cant be met under any circumatances, what happens?
THEY GO BANKRUPT AND OUT OF BUSINESS.
So i can expect 614 coal power plants to shut down?
Highly doubt it. All that is is spin.
-
So i can expect 614 coal power plants to shut down?
Highly doubt it. All that is is spin.
Really? The EPA has just begun their insanity in regulating carbon.
The EPA has done and is doing more harm o this nation than 50 OBL's could ever possibly imagine.
-
Really? The EPA has just begun their insanity in regulating carbon.
The EPA has done and is doing more harm o this nation than 50 OBL's could ever possibly imagine.
Dude, i am with ya there! The fucking EPA is evil. I agree!
But we are not going to see 614 coal plants go belly up.
-
Dude, i am with ya there! The fucking EPA is evil. I agree!
But we are not going to see 614 coal plants go belly up.
I had been said that. Hey when was the last time there was a Oil Refinery built?
30 years right
Guess Obama is to blame for that too..
-
I had been said that. Hey when was the last time there was a Oil Refinery built?
30 years right
Guess Obama is to blame for that too..
Has he called for a new one to be built or has he done everything to shut down energy production in this country?
-
Has he called for a new one to be built or has he done everything to shut down energy production in this country?
Did bush 1 or bush 2 or clinton or regan?
-
Well, what about tens of thousands of people who lost here jobs because GM and Chrysler weren't bailed out?
I am starting to doubt that you possess even subpar intelligence. GM and Chrysler produce cars that emit greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are bad for the environment. GM and Chrysler were bailed out. Coal is a non renewable energy source that is bad for the environment. Do you think that the coal industry should receive a government bailout to save jobs as well?
Before you say no, think of the absurdity of the above argument. By proxy, you are arguing the same exact thing in this thread. If the government ran the coal industry, what do you think would happen?( Hint: The coal industry can't finance its operations with tax payer dollars or bribe the public to use its product in the form of tax rebates).
-
Obama’s EPA Regulations Will Cost Coal Industry $200 Billion & Electricity Rates to Skyrocket
GatewayPundit ^ | 6/8/11 | Jim Hoft
________________________ ________________________ ______________-
In January 2008 Barack Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle:
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers.”
He promised that his plan would cause electricity rates to skyrocket. He wasn’t kidding.
In January, 2011 the Obama Administration, for the first time ever, blocked an already approved bid to build one of the largest mountaintop removal coal mines in Appalachian history.
And, today it was reported that Obama’s energy plans will cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket Just as he promised.
Via US News and World Reports:
Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.
Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.
“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.
The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits.
________________________ ________________________ _
Is this what you pieces of trash voted for?
-
I am starting to doubt that you possess even subpar intelligence. GM and Chrysler produce cars that emit greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases are bad for the environment. GM and Chrysler were bailed out. Coal is a non renewable energy source that is bad for the environment. Do you think that the coal industry should receive a government bailout to save jobs as well?
Before you say no, think of the absurdity of the above argument. By proxy, you are arguing the same exact thing in this thread. If the government ran the coal industry, what do you think would happen?( Hint: The coal industry can't finance its operations with tax payer dollars or bribe the public to use its product in the form of tax rebates).
Sorry again I think you missed the point. I think your intellectual arrogance prevents you from seeing it which also prevents you from having a normal discussion with out sarcasm or insults with anyone that doesn't 100% agree with you. But that's just who you are. Maybe you can drop the stupid act of yours every once in a while.
My assertion was that without those bail outs thousands if not tens of thousands would lose their jobs. I was called sick because i supported reducing the coal industry and therefore supported people losing their jobs. By not supporting those bail outs for the GM and Chrysler you are in the same way supporting the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. It was a comparison in the context of my argument with 33333. Nothing more.
Coal is bad and outdated. It must go. Not all at once, phased out over 20-30 years. I don't know that what Obama is doing is best and i don't know that we will ever get passed EPA crap regarding nuclear power. But the thinking is sound. Nuclear is the way to go. No more coal.
-
Sorry again I think you missed the point. I think your intellectual arrogance prevents you from seeing it which also prevents you from having a normal discussion with out sarcasm or insults with anyone that doesn't 100% agree with you. But that's just who you are. Maybe you can drop the stupid act of yours every once in a while.
My assertion was that without those bail outs thousands if not tens of thousands would lose their jobs. I was called sick because i supported reducing the coal industry and therefore supported people losing their jobs. By not supporting those bail outs for the GM and Chrysler you are in the same way supporting the loss of tens of thousands of jobs. It was a comparison in the context of my argument with 33333. Nothing more.
Coal is bad and outdated. It must go. Not all at once, phased out over 20-30 years. I don't know that what Obama is doing is best and i don't know that we will ever get passed EPA crap regarding nuclear power. But the thinking is sound. Nuclear is the way to go. No more coal.
I understand your point perfectly. And you are flat out wrong. Nothing arrogant about it-- just speaking the truth. When a company fails because of its own incompetence, it should be allowed to do so. I don't want to dwell on why the bailouts were disgraceful, illegal and ineffective; suffice it to say that you are comparing apples and bowling balls. Ford did just fine without being subsidized by the government. What do we have now? An American auto industry that is an acting a wing of the Obama administration where the UAW owns 60%.
Coal is being killed despite its profitability because of an administration that is hostile toward business and ideologically zealous to the point of delirium. Coal can and would do just fine without the Obama administrations foot on its neck. Coal doesn't need a bailout-- it needs to be able to operate without paying billions in added costs that the EPA manufactured out of thin air.
If you can't see the difference between these two situations, lets just agree to disagree. Confidence and arrogance are two different things. In this case, the facts and logic are not on your side.
-
I understand your point perfectly. And you are flat out wrong. Nothing arrogant about it-- just speaking the truth. When a company fails because of its own incompetence, it should be allowed to do so. I don't want to dwell on why the bailouts were disgraceful, illegal and ineffective; suffice it to say that you are comparing apples and bowling balls. Ford did just fine without being subsidized by the government. What do we have now? An American auto industry that is an acting a wing of the Obama administration where the UAW owns 60%.
Coal is being killed despite its profitability because of an administration that is hostile toward business and ideologically zealous to the point of delirium. Coal can and would do just fine withOk moron. Let's do a comparison with the following quotes-- out the Obama administrations foot on its neck. Coal doesn't need a bailout-- it needs to be able to operate without paying billions in added costs that the EPA manufactured out of thin air.
If you can't see the difference between these two situations, lets just agree to disagree. Confidence and arrogance are two different things. In this case, the facts and logic are not on your side.
So its ok for people to lose their jobs if its for the right reasons? Right. It was just a comparison George. I am not defending the auto bail outs
-
One is a result of a failed business model and poor business practices.
The other is a result of purposeful govt meddling and regulation by fiat.
Hope you can realize the difference.
-
One is a result of a failed business model and poor business practices.
The other is a result of purposeful govt meddling and regulation by fiat.
Hope you can realize the difference.
I understand the difference. But the fact remains that they both have lost their jobs. I don't support people losing regardless of the reasons, just the same as i would hope you would.
-
Yes you do support the coal people losing their jobs. you already said so.
-
Yes you do support the coal people losing their jobs. you already said so.
::)
-
As much as I can't stand Oz I usually respect his opinions. This isn't one of those times. The double standard he is applying here doesn't fly.
You don't like the coal industry so it should die--- in spite of the fact people will be put out of work.
You don't have a problem with GM-- therefore the government bail out was justified because people got to keep their jobs.
Regardless of your distaste for coal and the double standard you are applying-- the point is this: The government shouldn't be allowed to pick winners and losers like this. The free market should determine winners and losers, not some hack politician, environmental whack job, union fat car or bean counting bureaucrat.
-
Yeah but George I still like ye. :D
It's not a matter or of like or dislike when it comes to the coal industry. Coal was necessary up to 30 years ago. It isn't needed now.
Which makes me wonder which part of a 20 to 30 year phase out and "I don't know what Obama is doing is best" don't you understand?
Or for that matter what part of "I am not defending the bail out" don't you understand. I would bet no matter what what president or congress was present that bail would have happened. (again, I am not defending it). It's just reality.
When people lose jobs it's terrible no matter what the reason. Whether it's because someone what's to uphold some principle (gov shouldn't be allowed to pick winners or losers) or because someone thinks one system is obsolete and harmful. A conversion to nuclear from coal can be done with few jobs lost.
Government has to be involved in some things regarding business. If not, big business left to run 100% unregulated spells disaster. How much is up for debate.
In any event Coal must go!
-
Get ready for electricity prices to “necessarily skyrocket”
Hotair ^ | June 12, 2011 | Ed Morrissey
________________________ ________________________ _________
Have you had a lot of fun watching the price of gasoline shoot out of sight this year at the pump? That will be just the appetizer. Thanks to new regulations from the Obama administration, power companies will shut down a significant number of coal-fired plants by 2014, and without any other reliable sources of mass-produced electricity, consumers will see their bills go up as much as 60% (via Instapundit and Newsalert):
It’s the EPA gift that keeps on … taking.
On the other hand, we can consider this a rarity — an Obama promise kept:
Even without cap-and-trade — or perhaps more accurately, even with a backdoor carbon tax through regulatory adventurism — Obama kept his promise to have electricity rates skyrocketing, and putting the burden on consumers, business, and taxpayers. Who said that every Obama promise comes with an expiration date?
-
Consumers' electric bills likely to spike as coal plants close
As stricter environmental regulations approach, some power generators are choosing to shutter their coal-fired plants.
Share281(64)
Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 65 percent in the next few years. (Handout)
By Julie Wernau, Tribune reporter
June 11, 2011
Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.
The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.
Related
GRAPHIC: Graphic: More coal plant shutting down in the future
Topics
Coal
Chicago
Illinois
See more topics »
The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.
"Each generator will have to decide for itself whether the investment required to meet environmental requirements can be justified based on its projection of market prices and the cost of its capital. In any case, those costs will be passed through to consumers," said Mark Pruitt, director of the Illinois Power Agency, which procures electricity for Illinois.
American Electric Power, one of the country's largest coal-burning electricity generators, said Thursday it will retire nearly a quarter of its coal-fueled generating capacity and that it will spend up to $8 billion to retrofit remaining units to meet regulations that start taking effect in 2014. Those moves will have an impact.
"The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,'' AEP Chairman and CEO Michael G. Morris said.
Exactly how much bills will go up is unclear.
What analysts know is that a portion of ComEd bills that pays electricity generators to reserve a portion of their power three years into the future will increase more than fourfold. That would translate into increases of $107 to $178 a year for an average residential customer in ComEd's territory, starting in 2014, according to calculations by Chris Thomas, policy director for consumer advocacy group Citizens Utility Board.
In 2014 those so-called capacity costs are expected to add approximately $2.7 million over the previous year to electricity bills in Chicago Public Schools, $3.3 million for the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District and $5.4 million to the city of Chicago, according to an analysis by Tenaska, a Nebraska-based power development company that wants to develop a coal-fed power plant in central Illinois that would meet stringent regulations because it would capture and sequester emissions.
Coal-fired plants historically have been one of the cheapest ways to generate electricity, but operating costs are expected to increase significantly because of upgrades needed on older plants to meet new environmental regulations. The Illinois Power Agency estimates that by 2017 the energy portion of bills could jump 65 percent from today's rates.
Coal plants that account for roughly a fifth of Illinois' electricity generation could exit the market as a result of the new emissions rules, the Illinois Power Agency told state legislators in a memo last month.
More than 8,000 megawatts of coal-fired generation capacity has been retired in the U.S. since 2005, according to data from industrial software company Ventyx. Generators have announced they plan to retire another 21,000 megawatts in the near future, and some industry consultant studies estimate 60,000 megawatts of power, enough for 60 million homes, will be taken offline by 2017.
One example of the trend is Dominion Resources' recent announcement that by 2014 it will close State Line Power Station, an outmoded coal-fired plant sandwiched between Lake Michigan and the Chicago Skyway at the Illinois-Indiana border.
The news comes as consumer advocacy groups are fighting a parade of utility rate hikes, along with legislation that could add an extra 2.5 percent to ComEd bills each year for at least the next three years. ComEd customers paid 30 percent more for their electricity in 2009 than 10 years earlier. ComEd, a unit of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., serves 3.8 million customers across northern Illinois, or 70 percent of the state's population.
While coal plant operators have years to plan for new regulations, the first glimpse into future pricing came May 13. That's when the PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission system that oversees the electric grid for 54 million customers in 13 states, including the ComEd region of Illinois, held its annual auction for future power needs. The auction locks in supplies of electricity three years in advance to prevent massive power outages.
PJM chooses the lowest-cost blend of power that can meet demand expected during peak hours — the hottest days of the year when air conditioners are blasting.
In return for that commitment, utilities pay auction winners a "capacity payment," which is determined based on the cost of the supply mix. Consumers pay these costs on electricity bills as part of an "electricity supply charge" that makes up about two-thirds of the bill. The payments are in addition to what generators receive for the energy they sell.
Figuring in additional costs of scrubbers and other environmental upgrades, the coal-fired plant operators bid too high and found themselves out of a job.
"The surprise was probably in the fact that (the bids) went up so quickly in just the one-year time frame," said Travis Miller, associate director for utilities research at Chicago-based Morningstar.
Overall, enough electricity to power about 6.8 million homes dropped out of the auction compared with last year. This means the price consumers pay to ComEd to reserve that electricity will go up because power that costs more to generate, such as gas-fired peaker plants, will be tapped sooner.
Not all coal-fired power plants in service will need to install emission-control equipment.
As of May 2010, nearly half of the 310 gigawatts of coal-fired generating capacity in the U.S. had already installed the necessary scrubbers and more were permitted or under construction, according to an analysis by ICF International, a global consultancy.
Environmentalists say the new regulations will protect Americans from airborne mercury, arsenic, dioxin, acid gases and deadly particulates from coal-burning power plants. How companies choose to meet those standards — whether by installing emission controls or shutting down — is a business decision, said Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund.
One company that expects to benefit from the changes is Chicago-based Exelon Corp., which has a large fleet of nuclear power plants that have low emissions and are cheap to run compared with coal plants.
"The upside to Exelon is unmistakable," CEO John Rowe said last year. "Every $50 per megawatt-day as a change in capacity prices, translates to almost $350 million of additional capacity revenue for Exelon in 2014 and subsequent years."
Rowe said energy prices are also expected to rise if coal plants are retired and replaced with other energy sources, like natural gas. "These changes add up quickly," he said. "A $5 per megawatt-hour increase in energy prices would be $700 million to $800 million of incremental annual revenue to Exelon on an open basis. We expect that at least some of that upside will be realized in the next two to four years."
Meanwhile, legislators are working on a variety of possible alternatives to offset the loss of cheap coal power. One of the boldest ideas is allowing the Illinois Power Agency be able to procure energy efficiency — essentially paying businesses to reduce energy consumption.
A 2009 report prepared for ComEd by energy and environmental consultancy Cadmus Group Inc. found that 14 percent of energy supplied by the grid could be "cost-effectively avoided" through energy efficiency programs.
"Energy efficiency is the cleanest way to meet our power needs," said Howard Learner, president and executive director of the Environmental Law and Policy Center. "There's a tremendous amount of energy in buildings and people's homes that can help save us money on utility bills and feed our economy."
jwernau@tribune.com
Hope and change assholes.
-
Obama Coal Regulations to Boost Price of Electricity as Much as 60 Percent by 2014
Mark Whittington, Yahoo! Contributor Network
Jun 12, 2011 "Contribute content like this. Start Here."
MORE:cam newtonObamajohn boehnermacbookBrett Favre
PrintFlag 6 I like thisPost a comment
COMMENTARY | President Barack Obama, while still a candidate, promised he would bankrupt the coal industry. According to the Chicago Tribune, it looks like this will be a rare promise that Obama will actually keep.
Unfortunately, it will mean sky-rocketing electricity prices for Americans, as much as 60 percent more by
2014.
The Obama administration intends to slap environmental regulations on coal fired plants that will make many of them impossible to operate. Even those coal plants that will continue to function will only do so at the expense of billions of dollars of upgrades, which of course will be passed along to the consumer.
Obama's plan to bankrupt the coal industry originally depended on cap and trade. Coal fired plants produce more than their share of so-called greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and would have been hit hardest in a cap and trade regime.
However since cap and trade has not been approved by the Congress, the Obama EPA, having taken upon itself the task of regulating the production of carbon dioxide, has decided to go about it with a will, thus furthering the president's goal of destroying the coal industry.
The effects on the price of electricity of the new regulations will be about the same as the effects on the price of gasoline of the administrations restrictions on oil drilling. The president possesses the charming idea that he can change the way the United States generates energy by government fiat. Unfortunately attempting to supplant the market place with central planning always results in economic dislocation that rarely affects the policy makers who institutes the plans to start with.
One suspects that the Congress will try to put a stop to this. Even the Democratic Senate may balk, seeing not only damage to Democratic represented coal states such as West Virginia and Pennsylvania, but electoral disaster in 2012.
If people decide that the only way to restrain a president's desire to destroy and entire industry and increase the price of electricity for their own good will be to replace that president with someone more
reasonable, that impulse may be unstoppable. Obama has just handed yet another issue to the growing group of Republicans who want his job.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8139387/obama_coal_regulations_to_boost_price_pg2.html?cat=62
Bump
-
June 13, 2011
Crony Capitalism and Obama's Anti-Coal Crusade
By Ed Lasky
________________________ ________________________ ____
Barack Obama has long sought to bankrupt the coal industry. But, Cook County politician that he is and always will be, the relevant question is: who benefits from his plans wreck a major portion of our economy while also boosting electricity prices across America?
A clue: he and his pals from Chicago have incestuous ties to the one company whose prospects will be boosted by Obama's policies.
While Barack Obama has broken many promises he made along the campaign trail to the Oval Office, one promise seems close to whatever heart he may have: to bankrupt the coal industry.
He told the editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008 of his plans:
q/
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.
That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.
The only thing I've said with respect to coal, I haven't been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a (sic) ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.
So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.
It's just that it will bankrupt them.
He also promised that under his plans to transform the energy industry "electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket."
While he failed in Congress to pass the cap-and-trade bill that would have been a direct assault on the coal industry (Democrats from coal-mining states, such as Senator Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia joined with Republicans to derail these efforts) and that would have ineluctably led to his goal of sending utility bills soaring, Obama (as is his wont) has used indirect means at his disposal to circumvent Congress and kill off coal. This is his modus operandi: take steps behind the scenes that the media will not disclose to bully his programs to fruition.
He has used his executive power to seal off vast areas of federal land from coal mining.
But it is primarily through the use of his regulatory empire (the number of federal regulations has skyrocketed under his administration) that he has put a chokehold not only on the coal mining industry but also on utilities that burn coal to generate electricity. And, incidentally, this will put a chokehold on Americans trying to balance their budgets (of course, Obama doesn't care about balancing budgets -- such a concept is foreign to him; were it so for us).
Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, has been her point person in driving this agenda.
Her most recent and dramatic step has been to pass environmental regulations to make coal-fired generating plants that produce about half the nations' electricity, much more expensive to operate. The Chicago Tribune reports:
Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.
The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation's electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.
The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.
Already, prices for electricity are jumping at a time our economy and consumers can least afford more blows.
But there are also those who would benefit from such plans and they include people and companies quite close to President Obama.
From the Tribune article:
One company that expects to benefit from the changes is Chicago-based Exelon Corp., which has a large fleet of nuclear power plants that have low emissions and are cheap to run compared with coal plants.
"The upside to Exelon is unmistakable," CEO John Rowe said last year. "Every $50 per megawatt-day as a change in capacity prices, translates to almost $350 million of additional capacity revenue for Exelon in 2014 and subsequent years."
Rowe said energy prices are also expected to rise if coal plants are retired and replaced with other energy sources, like natural gas. "These changes add up quickly," he said. "A $5 per megawatt-hour increase in energy prices would be $700 million to $800 million of incremental annual revenue to Exelon on an open basis. We expect that at least some of that upside will be realized in the next two to four years."
Sadly, the paper -- an early promoter of Barack Obama's career -- does not delve further into who else may reap the rewards at the American people's expense. What political figures close to Barack Obama have long ties to Exelon?
David Axlerod, Obama's campaign strategist and chief domestic policy adviser (who had the office closest to the Oval one before he left the White House to return to the 2012 campaign trail), has reaped quite a few rewards from doing business with Commonwealth Edison, which became part of the Exelon octopus through corporate mergers (this corporate history is linked to Rahm Emanuel, see below).
Axelrod's firm, ASK Public Strategies, is the "gold standard in Astroturf organizing" (Astroturf organizations are fake grassroots groups that are actually funded and promoted by corporate interests).
From a Business Week article :
ASK's predilection for operating in the shadows shows up in its work. On behalf of ComEd and Comcast, the firm helped set up front organizations that were listed as sponsors of public-issue ads...
ASK's relationship with ComEd goes back much further: The Chicago-based utility says ASK has been an adviser since at least 2002. ASK's workload picked up in 2005, as the Exelon subsidiary was nearing the end of a 10-year rate freeze and preparing to ask state regulators for higher electricity prices. Based on ASK's advice, ComEd formed Consumers Organized for Reliable Electricity (CORE) to win support.
CORE (and Com Ed and David Axelrod's ASK) were successful in their efforts to fool people and pressure regulators and politicians into accepting rate hikes.
Now we have Barack Obama, his hand-picked appointees and his cronies pursuing policies that will again boost electricity bills and benefit Com Ed and its corporate parent. A richer Exelon is a happier client for David Axelrod. While Barack Obama has angered many in the corporate community, rest assured that dollars will flow from the corporate coffers and officers of Exelon to fund Obama's road to the White House. History repeats itself as farce.
Who else may benefit from this rape of electricity consumers? There are the legions of investors in green schemes who are Obama supporters and whose uneconomic projects can only succeed through government arm-twisting (an Obama talent).
Then there is Rahm Emanuel, Obama's longtime political ally and his former Chief of Staff who recently became Chicago's mayor. But between stints in politics he took the revolving door between politics and business and signed up for a very lucrative and brief career in investment banking. This is the very same revolving door Obama has promised to close. Who was his major client? Need one ask? The aforementioned John Rowe, Chief Executive Officer of Exelon.
In a Forbes magazine article from 2009, Rowe boasted of his decade-long planning for more expensive coal. His plans have borne luscious fruit.
Rowe, 64, the longest-serving utility executive in the industry and chief executive of Exelon, the country's most valuable utility by market value, is indeed in the catbird seat. While Exelon and the rest of the utility industry has been battered by a weak economy and suddenly low electricity demand and prices, Exelon has a lot to look forward to. Soon after Rowe created Exelon in 2000 with the merger of the Chicago utility Unicom (parent of Commonwealth Edison) and the Philadelphia utility Peco, he sold off most of the company's coal plants and focused the company on nuclear. He created a generation subsidiary that sells the power produced by 17 reactors, by far the largest nuclear fleet in the nation and the third biggest in the world.
This statement (commendable in its brute honesty) is akin to a smoking gun: Exelon is the biggest and most direct beneficiary of Obama's energy policies. Rowe knows Chicago politics as well as he knows how to run nukes (he has an admirable record in doing so). Whose bread was buttered over the years as Exelon grew ?
Exelon has very deep ties to the Obama Administration. Frank M. Clark, who runs ComEd, helped advise Obama before he ran for President and is one of Obama's largest fundraisers. Obama's chief political strategist, David Axelrod, worked as a consultant to Exelon. Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, helped create Exelon. Emanuel was hired by Rowe to help broker the $8.2 billion deal between Unicom and Peco when Emanuel was at the investment bank Wasserstein Perella (now Dresdner Kleinwort). In his two-year career there Emanuel earned $16.2 million, according to congressional disclosures. His biggest deal was the Exelon merger.
For history buffs, Com Ed at one time was headed by Tom Ayers, a power broker par excellence in Chicago. Ayers was the father of Bill Ayers -- the former Weatherman terrorist who gave birth to Obama's political career and had close Obama ties through Chicago-based activist groups (he was not just "some guy in the neighborhood" whose kids play with Obama's daughters as Axlerod characterized Bill Ayers; Ayers' children are adults -- what kind of play did they have with Obama's prepubescent daughters? Journalists never asked that question and many others that they should have back in 2008).
Obama learned a great deal from his time spent in the muck of Cook County politics. There is a saying in Chicago that when people seek positions or contracts from Chicago politicians and their bureaucratic puppets they are asked " Who sent you?"
All too often the answer has been Exelon. But now the question should be asked not in Cook County but by journalist in Washington, D.C. when electricity prices "necessarily skyrocket" across America.
Think about that when you rush to turn off your lights: Obama and his cronies like to keep us in the dark.
Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2011/06/crony_capitalism_and_obamas_anti-coal_crusade.html at June 13, 2011 - 07:59:39 AM CDT
________________________ ______________________-
And you idiots attack me for calling Obama a communist traitor and sleeper cell all on to himself? Yeah whatever. Obama is doing more damage than 50 bin ladens combined could ever dream of.
-
Exxon, U.S. Government Duel Over Huge Oil Find
By RUSSELL GOLD
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903596904576514762275032794.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection
Exxon Mobil Corp. is fighting with the U.S. government to keep control of one of its biggest oil discoveries ever, in a showdown where billions of dollars hang in the balance for both sides.
View Full Image
.The massive Gulf of Mexico discovery contains an estimated one billion barrels of recoverable oil, the company says. The Interior Department, which regulates offshore drilling, says Exxon's leases have expired and the company hasn't met the requirements for an extension. Exxon has sued to retain the leases.
The court battle is playing out at a time in which the Obama administration has made an issue of unused leases, which deprive the Treasury of valuable taxes. It also comes as regulators are being careful not to be seen as lax in their dealings with large energy companies in the wake of last year's BP PLC spill.
The stakes are high: Under federal law, the leases—and all the oil underneath—could revert to the government if Exxon doesn't win in court.
The loss of the leases would be an enormous black eye for Exxon. The company hadn't previously disclosed the size of the discovery in what is called the Julia field until it was mentioned in the suit Exxon filed against the Interior Department last week in federal court in Lake Charles, La.
The Texas behemoth faces the sobering prospect that it may have made the largest discovery ever in the Gulf of Mexico only to lose it. Tens of billions of dollars of oil could slip through its hands because it failed to follow federal rules for getting a lease extension while it moved forward with plans to get the oil out of the ground.
Exxon spokesman Patrick McGinn said the company expected to get the extension, which he said was traditionally granted as a matter of course. "You state your case and you got it. [This] was unexpected."
This high-stakes standoff is likely to spark a political, as well as legal, showdown between the federal government and the nation's largest oil company. It has also roped in Norway's Statoil ASA, which owns 50% of the Julia find. Statoil said it filed its own suit Monday in the same Louisiana federal court against the Interior Department to preserve the leases. Exxon is the field's operator and lease holder.
A spokeswoman for the Interior Department said, "Our priority remains the safe development of the nation's offshore energy resources, which is why we continue to approve extensions that meet regulatory standards."
The Interior Department, which oversees offshore oil development and collects royalties, has been trying to show that it has become a tougher, but still fair, regulator of the Gulf of Mexico's oil riches. Its reputation was battered during the massive Deepwater Horizon well blowout and oil spill last year, when BP sought—and the government approved—last-minute changes to the well design, which some investigators say contributed to a chaotic environment aboard the drilling rig. The government was roundly criticized for weak oversight of safety rules.
Now the department must decide whether to fight Exxon in court or settle and allow it to develop the oil. Turning the leases over to another company would mean further delays to the tax royalties that would go to government coffers. At current prices, potential royalties paid to the government over the lifetime of a one billion-barrel field would be about $10.95 billion.
The oil industry, led vocally by Exxon, has said that developing oil fields in the deepest reaches of the Gulf takes time to do safely. And by threatening to take away a massive discovery, the industry says that the government is sending the message that oil companies need to be in a rush to produce.
The possibility that Exxon could lose this oil will likely send shock waves through the industry. "This is unprecedented," said Amy Myers Jaffe, associate director of the Energy Program at Rice University in Houston. "The question is: Do our offshore rules allow for flexibility? You don't want to let companies sit on a discovery…We definitely don't want to send the industry a message that you need to be in a rush or we'll take the oil away from you."
Exxon's lawsuit said the government has granted "thousands" of extensions over time. It said the government's denial of its extension relied on legal interpretations that it "had never before applied and had never before articulated." Statoil asserted in its lawsuit that no request for an extension for a deep-water development "had ever previously been denied." The Interior Department couldn't comment on this.
The Exxon discovery is believed to be the largest in the Gulf of Mexico since BP found the Thunder Horse Field in 1999, and it could be larger. The find also cements the Gulf of Mexico as a rich exploration area with large amounts of undiscovered oil that may keep oil companies active for years to come.
"This is very deep water, very complex structures and difficult-to-produce oil," said Exxon's Mr. McGinn.
The dispute over Exxon's plans for the Julia field began in October 2008—about a month before its 10-year leases expired—when it applied for a five-year "suspension of production."
Such extensions are "fairly common," said Elmer P. Danenberger III, a former federal official who oversaw U.S. offshore-drilling rules until he retired in 2009.
"I can honestly say that people who manage that program are really strict, which they need to be or it will be abused. If you don't have a commercial discovery and a plan for moving ahead at the end of the lease term…that's it."
In February 2009, the government denied Exxon's request for an extension and after a brief appeal denied it again that April. Exxon said in a letter at the time that it was "committed" to producing the oil, but the government said it didn't present a specific plan. The government contended this didn't meet legal requirements and denied the application.
More appeals followed, but Exxon lost its final appeal in May. The final decision hinged on whether Exxon had a concrete "commitment" to produce the oil in December 2008, when its lease expired. The director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals at the Interior Department ruled that it didn't.
Exxon is known in the industry for moving slowly and studying all options exhaustively before committing billions of dollars. But even if it loses this court case, all might not be lost. The Julia field consists of five leases—or square blocks in the Gulf of Mexico—and only three are being disputed. The other two aren't set to expire until 2013.
—Deborah Solomon
and Angel Gonzalez contributed to this article.
Write to Russell Gold at russell.gold@wsj.com
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
EPA's Looming Blackouts
IBD Editorials ^ | August 22, 2011 | Staff
Posted on August 22, 2011 7:53:03 PM EDT by Kaslin
Energy: It won't matter which light bulbs we use as the administration's implementation of cross-state pollution rules shuts down coal plants across the country. Where will the jobs be when the lights go out?
It's called the Cross-State Pollution Rule, announced last month, and its implementation over the next 18 months will likely result in the loss of a fifth of the nation's electricity-generating capacity.
The result will be likely power shortages, skyrocketing rates and inevitable brownouts and rolling blackouts.
Based on Bush-era EPA proposals that the federal courts threw out in 2008, this latest example of legislation is designed to usurp state powers to regulate their in-state emissions by making it a federal issue on the grounds pollution crosses state lines.
The rule requires coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73% and 54%, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2014. "Just because wind and weather will carry air pollution away from its source at a local power plant doesn't mean that pollution is no longer that plant's responsibility," says Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson.
The targets are states such as Texas that not only resist federal encroachment on their powers but dare to try to balance environmental quality. The EPA claims huge health gains as its justification, but those claims are in doubt. Poverty and joblessness, which this and other EPA rules will create, carry their own health risks.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
-
You know that noone reads or cares about the articles you copy and paste right?
-
Whatever. Stay ignorant.
-
Whatever. Stay ignorant.
I got more important things to do in my life then care about shit that dont matter..like getting laid
-
I'm sure jersey shore and american idol are far more importabt to you than the collapse of the nation.
Seems par for the course most obamabots.
-
I'm sure jersey shore and american idol are far more importabt to you than the collapse of the nation.
Seems par for the course most obamabots.
HAHAHAHA Who talks like that?? U must be popular at party's ::)
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/average-price-electricity-climbs-all-time-record
;)