Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 09, 2011, 07:10:00 AM
-
Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 8, 2011
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills
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.
[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]
“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. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]
What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background. [Check out political cartoons on the economy.]
Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry.
The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy. [See a slide show of the best cities to find a job.]
Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.
Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.
-
Come on Team Traitor - defend this shit.
-
Maybe its just me, but where exactly did the EPA get the power to implement this sort of shit? They are not elected, they have no business making policy.
-
Maybe its just me, but where exactly did the EPA get the power to implement this sort of shit? They are not elected, they have no business making policy.
Fascist Police state.
I just want one 95% moron (Mal, Benny, Andre, blacken), enviro freak show (kc, TA,) or just general deluded far left dope (Straw, Chad, Bay) to defend this insanity.
Is this what you voted for morons?
-
guy!!!!!!!!!!!!!
RUSH STEALING MY SHIT AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
We have over 250 years or more energy supply of domestic coal. Clean burning coal powerplants hardly put any smog into the atmosphere anymore. So what does Obama admin do? Overregulate and destroy the whole industry. Another example of why the EPA is a waste of tax dollars and why Obama should resign.
-
We have over 250 years or more energy supply of domestic coal. Clean burning coal powerplants hardly put any smog into the atmosphere anymore. So what does Obama admin do? Overregulate and destroy the whole industry. Another example of why the EPA is a waste of tax dollars and why Obama should resign.
He is trying to collapse the nation, why is it so hard for others to grasp?
-
I would say most people are brainwashed by the sound-bite state controlled media and do not perfrom critical thinking or analysis on their own.
-
What needs to happen is for coal to be phased completely out and replaced by Nuclear energy.
How this happens and how long it should take i do not know. But is needs to happen.
-
What needs to happen is for coal to be phased completely out and replaced by Nuclear energy.
How this happens and how long it should take i do not know. But is needs to happen.
So long as ZERO is the potus, not going to happen. The hundreds of thousands will lose their jbs, our energy prices will skyrpcket, and no new nuke plants will be built.
This disgusting communist traitor and marxist sleeper cell pofs obama wants us all in tents under candle light.
-
So long as ZERO is the potus, not going to happen. The hundreds of thousands will lose their jbs, our energy prices will skyrpcket, and no new nuke plants will be built.
This disgusting communist traitor and marxist sleeper cell pofs obama wants us all in tents under candle light.
I didn't know our government was in the nuclear plant building business. ::)
If it makes coal too expensive maybe the market will spur more nuke plants in the future. either way coal sucks ass.
-
I didn't know our government was in the nuclear plant building business. ::)
If it makes coal too expensive maybe the market will spur more nuke plants in the future. either way coal sucks ass.
They prevent them via litigation and the permit process.
-
They prevent them via litigation and the permit process.
Whatever, coal needs to go.
-
Whatever, coal needs to go.
Why? And I hope you are so cool with it that you personally hand out the pink slips to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHO WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS as a result of your green bullshit.
BTW - don't you californians ever once look in the mirror and ask why your stupid ass state is in such a disastrous mess?
-
Fascist Police state.
I just want one 95% moron (Mal, Benny, Andre, blacken), enviro freak show (kc, TA,) or just general deluded far left dope (Straw, Chad, Bay) to defend this insanity.
Is this what you voted for morons?
lol you are an active little fuck.. are you like this in person.. if we were talking about politics and i hadnt said anything about you personally.. would you use all this moron talk?
-
Why? And I hope you are so cool with it that you personally hand out the pink slips to the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS WHO WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS as a result of your green bullshit.
BTW - don't you californians ever once look in the mirror and ask why your stupid ass state is in such a disastrous mess?
Apples to oranges dude.
COAL must go. It must be replaced by NE.
Only an ignorant dumb ass would believe otherwise.
-
lol you are an active little fuck.. are you like this in person.. if we were talking about politics and i hadnt said anything about you personally.. would you use all this moron talk?
::) ::)
You voted for and support this admn. Take ownership of this moron.
-
Coal should be phased out in a 20-30 year plan and replaced by Nuclear energy.
Because of the EPA nazi's we are years behind the rest of the world.
-
::) ::)
You voted for and support this admn. Take ownership of this moron.
im just saying..if we were discussing our political opinions face to face.. would you use this moron talk?
-
Coal should be phased out in a 20-30 year plan and replaced by Nuclear energy.
Because of the EPA nazi's we are years behind the rest of the world.
That's not going to happen. They want to ban EVERYTHING!
Coal - nope
Oil - nope
Hydro - nope
Natural gas - nope
The only thing the green zeolots support is wind and solar which are unreliable and ridiculously expensive.
-
I am thinking any penalty that drives the cost of power from coal up is a good thing. Because it will increase the desire for nuclear power.
-
That's not going to happen. They want to ban EVERYTHING!
Coal - nope
Oil - nope
Hydro - nope
Natural gas - nope
The only thing the green zeolots support is wind and solar which are unreliable and ridiculously expensive.
Not true.
Educated people know you cant supply the power of this country with wind and solar.
-
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
-
BTW, 33333,
Got any link or evidence where Obama says: "I Promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?
-
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
meltdown
-
meltdown
QFT 8)
-
BTW, 33333,
Got any link or evidence where Obama says: "I Promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?
bump for the truth.
-
BTW, 33333,
Got any link or evidence where Obama says: "I Promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?
bump for answer
-
bump for answer
WATCH THE FUCKING YOUTUBE CLIP!
-
WATCH THE FUCKING YOUTUBE CLIP!
which one?
does he say: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry?
-
dude you really need to check your blood pressure.. you are starting to unravel over there
-
"If someone wants to build a coal power plant they can, its (the new regulations) just going to bankrupt them."
More 333333 gay ass spin and lies.
This is the right idea.
-
Bump because 33333 lied in the title of the thread.
-
-
Fair and balanced
-
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
No more coal!
-
"If someone wants to build a coal power plant they can, its (the new regulations) just going to bankrupt them."
More 333333 gay ass spin and lies.
This is the right idea.
::) ::) ::)
Did you read the lead article moron?
No wonder your stupid ass state is on the brink of collapse with idiots like yourself and mal voting over there.
-
::) ::) ::)
Did you read the lead article moron?
No wonder your stupid ass state is on the brink of collapse with idiots like yourself and mal voting over there.
Where does OBama say:
"I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?????????????????????????????????????????
-
Good - I hope your moronic state plunges even deeper into the abyss and other states build walls barring idiot californians from leaving.
and I hope you are ok with hundreds of thousands losing their jobs due to your green odessey. Its failed everywhere else, but oh, obama has a plan, so it must be able to work here. ::) ::)
-
Only an idiot would choose coal over any kind of legit power source.
-
Where does OBama say:
"I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?????????????????????????????????????????
BUMP
-
Where does OBama say:
"I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?????????????????????????????????????????
Ok - now you are playing just playing dumb. Number 1 - read the fucking article. No. 2 - watch his own clips.
-
Where does OBama say:
"I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
?????????????????????????????????????????
bump for answer
-
Ok - now you are playing just playing dumb. Number 1 - read the fucking article. No. 2 - watch his own clips.
Quote from the article, provide a time code........
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Otherwise, YOU LIED.
-
BUMP
WATCH THE FUCKING CLIPS ASSHOLE! Read the damn article!
Seriously - its morons like yourself and mal that perfectly explain the election of obama.
-
Quote from the article, provide a time code........
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Otherwise, YOU LIED.
bump.
Can you?
-
Ok - now you are playing just playing dumb. Number 1 - read the fucking article. No. 2 - watch his own clips.
bump for an answer better than this lame ass one.. bump for an original answer
-
com on spinster:
PROVIDE A QUOTE OR TIME CODE
-
WATCH THE FUCKING CLIPS ASSHOLE! Read the damn article!
Seriously - its morons like yourself and mal that perfectly explain the election of obama.
bump for ignoring his request
bump for just going ahead and pointing out where he stated he promised to bankrupt the coal intustry
-
come on spinster:
PROVIDE A QUOTE OR TIME CODE
bump because i was about to ask for the exact same thing
-
BUMP
-
You can't even supply one time code?
I listen to the first one, it said no such thing.
-
com on spinster:
PROVIDE A QUOTE OR TIME CODE
bump
-
You can't even supply one time code?
I listen to the first one, it said no such thing.
bump.. stop being a fucking retard and supply a time code where obama says "i promise to bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy prices"
bump you fuck head..bumb
-
BUMP
BUMP
-
So i guess its settled:
333333 lied on the title of the thread
-
BUMP
bump..... so this is gonna go on for 30 pages..all because you cant provide a time code and you dont want to admit that you lied
-
I am very disappointed.
Its such a simple thing. Either provide the quote or time code where he says: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry" or say: I was mistaken; "His policies will bankrupt the coal industry" adn then correct the title of the thread.
Its a simple issue of integrity in posting.
Sheeeeez.
:D
-
So i guess its settled:
333333 lied on the title of the thread
How - why not put it up for a general vote?
I guarantee you that you and the other idiot mal will lose.
Go figure - the biggest morons on this board all reside from the same failed liberal state.
The policies, regulations, statements, et al all have the explicit purpose - bankrupt the coal industry.
Mal - who quickly took the place as the biggest idiot on this board bar none (which says a lot considering posters like straw, blacken, and benny), cant even see that when obama says "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it", 'my plan is to skyrocket electric rates", an then goes on to impose hundreds of billions of dollars in crippling regulations to the coals industry what the purpose s.
-
I am very disappointed.
Its such a simple thing. Either provide the quote or time code where he says: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry" or say: I was mistaken; "His policies will bankrupt the coal industry" adn then correct the title of the thread.
Its a simple issue of integrity in posting.
Sheeeeez.
:D
Watch the clips an read the article.
You voted for this. I hope you are proud that hundreds of thousands will lose thei jobs partly due to your vote.
-
Watch the clips an read the article.
You voted for this. I hope you are proud that hundreds of thousands will lose thei jobs partly due to your vote.
Once again, in desperation, you incorrectly clump me into the group that voted for Obama.
So far you haven't provided any quote that matches the title.
The one quote you recently provided, based on the first youtube clip is inaccurate and only partially true.
so i will ask you again:
Can you provide a (accurate) quote or time code that matches the thread title?
-
BUMP
BUMP
-
so i will ask you again:
Can you provide a (accurate) quote or time code that matches the thread title?
bump
-
Once again, in desperation, you incorrectly clump me into the group that voted for Obama.
So far you haven't provided any quote that matches the title.
The one quote you recently provided, based on the first youtube clip is inaccurate and only partially true.
so i will ask you again:
Can you provide a (accurate) quote or time code that matches the thread title?
-
Can you provide a (accurate) quote or time code that matches the thread title?
-
33333,
I see now why you are not a trial lawyer. ;D
You'd get hammered. lol
-
Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills
By Paul Bedard
Posted: June 8, 2011
http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2011/06/08/coal-regs-would-kill-jobs-boost-energy-bills
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.
[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]
“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. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]
What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background. [Check out political cartoons on the economy.]
Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry.
The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy. [See a slide show of the best cities to find a job.]
Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.
Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.
BUMP - for the idiots - he clearly says "if you want to build a coal plant you are going to bankrupt"
-
33333,
I see now why you are not a trial lawyer. ;D
You'd get hammered. lol
and then go get consoled by the wiener slinger or bathroom man in the night club in NYC. i think they might be the same person
-
33333,
I see now why you are not a trial lawyer. ;D
You'd get hammered. lol
::) ::)
"if someone wants to build a coal plant they will get bankrupted"
-
BUMP - for the idiots - he clearly says "if you want to build a coal plant you are going to bankrupt"
And if i build a horse stable in downtown brooklyn.. ill go bankrupt as well
bump for being a dumb ass
bump for seeing you trying to sway away from the task at hand
Can you provide a (accurate) quote or time code that matches the thread title?
-
::) ::)
"if someone wants to build a coal plant they will get bankrupted"
If i build a shop and sold beepers.. i will get bankrupted as well..
-
BUMP - for the idiots - he clearly says "if you want to build a coal plant you are going to bankrupt"
"if someone wants to build a coal plant they will get bankrupted"
DOES NOT EQUAL:
Obama keeping promise to bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs
this is why you couldn't make it as a trial lawyer.
-
if i plan to build ice in iceland.. i will go bankrupt
-
"if someone wants to build a coal plant they will get bankrupted"
DOES NOT EQUAL:
Obama keeping promise to bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs
this is why you couldn't make it as a trial lawyer.
::) ::)
Read the article jackass.
He is implementing regulations that will result in higher electric costs. CHECK
He is implementing regulations to make it harder for coal companies to operate and stay viable - CHECK
He stated before the election he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry - CHECK
He stated before the election he wante dto SKYROCKET our electri rates - CHECK
What part are you confused about fool?
-
333333: ladies and gentlemen of the jury who hopefully weren't moronic enough to vote for Obama, can you see now by this quote:
"if someone wants to build a coal plant they will get bankrupted"
..that Obama is promising to bankrupt the coal industry?
Jury: You mean there are no coal plants anywhere in the USA?
3333333: NO! just read the god dam article! and watch the youtube clips! Its obvious you fucking kneepadders!
Jury: but isn't he talking about future plants?
333333: NO! NO! NO! Bump dammit bump!
Jury: where does he directly say: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"?
33333: you fucking morons, if you were night club bathroom attendants you'd get it.
-
333333: ladies and gentlemen of the jury who hopefully weren't moronic enough to vote for Obama, can you see now by this quote:
"if someone wants to build a coal plant they will get bankrupted"
..that Obama is promising to bankrupt the coal industry?
Jury: You mean there are no coal plants anywhere in the USA?
3333333: NO! just read the god dam article! and watch the youtube clips! Its obvious you fucking kneepadders!
Jury: but isn't he talking about future plants?
333333: NO! NO! NO! Bump dammit bump!
Jury: where does he directly say: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"?
33333: you fucking morons, if you were night club bathroom attendants you'd get it.
Ok.. this was the funniest shit ive read in a while.. god damn.. very good post...
-
::) ::)
Read the article jackass.
He is implementing regulations that will result in higher electric costs. CHECK
He is implementing regulations to make it harder for coal companies to operate and stay viable - CHECK
He stated before the election he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry - CHECK
He stated before the election he wante dto SKYROCKET our electri rates - CHECK
What part are you confused about fool?
I have only all this time in this thread just asked for a quote or a time code?
Can you provide a quote or time code where he promises to bankrupt the coal industry or not?
-
Ok.. this was the funniest shit ive read in a while.. god damn.. very good post...
;D ;D ;D ;D
thanks,
I not asking for much. just show me the quote or provide a time code. geeez lol
-
I have only all this time in this thread just asked for a quote or a time code?
Can you provide a quote or time code where he promises to bankrupt the coal industry or not?
NOT
-
He says it in the clips. I really dont know what more you want.
-
He says it in the clips. I really dont know what more you want.
I listen to the first clip and he did not say what the title of thread said.
PROVIDE A TIME CODE
-
He says it in the clips. I really dont know what more you want.
bitch, what you mean you dont know what we want.. ...the time code..we've only been asking for it for like an hour
-
I listen to the first clip and he did not say what the title of thread said.
PROVIDE A TIME CODE
I am not going to do a transcript. Listen to the fucking clips yourself and judge for yourself. "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it"
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
-
I am not going to do a transcript. Listen to the fucking clips yourself and judge for yourself. "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it"
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
so in other words... you lied.... again
-
I am not going to do a transcript. Listen to the fucking clips yourself and judge for yourself. "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it"
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
You don't need to do a transcript. I haven't once asked for one.
all i want is a quote or time code that shows obama saying I PROMISE TO BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY.
You know exactly what i am asking. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
I am not going to do a transcript. Listen to the fucking clips yourself and judge for yourself. "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it"
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
Question for bathroom attendants: does this: "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it"
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
match:
Re: Obama keeping promise to bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs
frankly i am even suspicious of as to whether or not this is accurate:
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
prolly full of it about that too.
-
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! 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!
-
Question for bathroom attendants: does this: "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing it"
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
match:
Re: Obama keeping promise to bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs
frankly i am even suspicious of as to whether or not this is accurate:
"Under my plan, electric rates will necessarily skyrocket"
prolly full of it about that too.
he knows it.. and he knows we know it.. its over.. he's done.. he has done the same in numerious threads..
bitch move if you ask me.
-
You don't need to do a transcript. I haven't once asked for one.
all i want is a quote or time code that shows obama saying I PROMISE TO BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY.
You know exactly what i am asking. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
And i said listen to the damn clips yourself as well as read the article.
He said its clearly in the clips. "under my plan, electricity rates will necessrily skyrocket", "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt"
So he is prohibiting new plants as well as passing onerous and draconian regulations on existing plants now existing to the tune of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS they dont have thereby assuring ther bankruptcy and you still question this?
WTF is wrong with you?
-
Only a retard would go after the coal industry right now.
-
Only a retard would go after the coal industry right now.
Well . . . . . . . . ..
-
And i said listen to the damn clips yourself as well as read the article.
He said its clearly in the clips. "under my plan, electricity rates will necessrily skyrocket", "if someone wants to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt"
So he is prohibiting new plants as well as passing onerous and draconian regulations on existing plants now existing to the tune of HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS they dont have thereby assuring ther bankruptcy and you still question this?
WTF is wrong with you?
I don't believe you. I watched and listened to one clip. What he said didn't match the thread title.
Now either you back you shit up or admit you were incorrect.
Additionally, now that you have possibly put your foot further in your mouth show me were Obama is prohibiting the building of new coal plants?
show me the law that prohibits new plants that he imposed.
-
It really should be a process of 20-30 years in phasing out coal and replacing it with nuclear energy.
-
I don't believe you. I watched and listened to one clip. What he said didn't match the thread title.
Now either you back you shit up or admit you were incorrect.
Additionally, now that you have possibly put your foot further in your mouth show me were Obama is prohibiting the building of new coal plants?
::) ::)
Are you playing dumb for fun? Seriously?
Who is ging to build a new coal pant when the POTUS says that whoever tried is going to go bankrupt in the process?
Seriously? No, seirously x2? This is all an act correct?
-
::) ::)
Are you playing dumb for fun? Seriously?
Who is ging to build a new coal pant when the POTUS says that whoever tried is going to go bankrupt in the process?
Seriously? No, seirously x2? This is all an act correct?
back your shit up or go home.
-
::) ::)
Are you playing dumb for fun? Seriously?
Who is ging to build a new coal pant when the POTUS says that whoever tried is going to go bankrupt in the process?
Seriously? No, seirously x2? This is all an act correct?
3333, i am asking you a very simple question and you refuse to answer it. FUCKING PATHETIC.
-
back your shit up or go home.
I have, with clips of Obama saying he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, jack our electric rates, articles showing him passing crippiling regulations that will bankrupt the industry and cause electric rates to skyrocket, etc.
Too bad you are still blind to realityto even take someone at their own word whn they lay it out in clear language.
-
3333, i am asking you a very simple question and you refuse to answer it. FUCKING PATHETIC.
And I answered - watch the damn clips and read the damn article.
-
I have, with clips of Obama saying he wants to bankrupt the coal industry, jack our electric rates, articles showing him passing crippiling regulations that will bankrupt the industry and cause electric rates to skyrocket, etc.
Too bad you are still blind to realityto even take someone at their own word whn they lay it out in clear language.
No you did not. You stated: Obama keeping promise to bankrupt the coal industry and skyrocket energy costs
You have not shown anything of the sort.
-
And I answered - watch the damn clips and read the damn article.
where in the article does Obama say: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
::)
-
where in the article does Obama say: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry"
::)
The article shows that he is enacting policies and regulations that
1) will bankrupt the coal industry and throw HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OUT OF WORK
AND
2) skyrocket electric rates
both of which he promised before the election.
-
The article shows that he is enacting policies and regulations that
1) will bankrupt the coal industry and throw HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OUT OF WORK
AND
2) skyrocket electric rates
both of which he promised before the election.
Show me where he said: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry.
-
Now, your title should have said:
"Obama's policies designed to bankrupt coal industry."
Then the last 4 pages of this thread wouldn't be needed.
-
Show me where he said: I promise to bankrupt the coal industry.
Watch the clips!
-
Watch the clips!
I watched one already and it failed to provided a quote that matched your thread title. therefore, i will not watch another and because you will not simply provide a time code i will conclude you can not back up your shit.
Provide a time code! But you can't because Obama never promised to bankrupt the coal did he?
-
I watched one already and it failed to provided a quote that matched your thread title. therefore, i will not watch another and because you will not simply provide a time code i will conclude you can not back up your shit.
Provide a time code! But you can't because Obama never promised to bankrupt the coal did he?
Watch the clips - they are not long. They are in his own words.
-
Watch the clips - they are not long. They are in his own words.
whose words? yours or his?
-
Even Pat Cadelle, a democrat under Carter - is utterly shocked at the obama promise to bankrupt the coal industry. I guess ozmo knows more than him too. ::) ::)
-
Even Pat Cadelle, a democrat under Carter - is utterly shocked at the obama promise to bankrupt the coal industry. I guess ozmo knows more than him too. ::) ::)
I do know more, show me and Pat where Obama says: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry."
PS: i want to see him say it.
-
I do know more, show me and Pat where Obama says: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry."
PS: i want to see him say it.
WATCH THE DAMN CLIP!
-
WATCH THE DAMN CLIP!
No. I have watched one already and as with that stupid birth certificate clip with that dumb ass old lady it didn't come close to being what you said it was it was.
So based on YOUR track record i do not need to waste time watching a clip that likely does not quote Obama saying: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry" I will however, listen to it if you provide a time code where he says it.
Which it seems you can't and therefore your thread title is inaccurate and a lie.
-
No. I have watched one already and as with that stupid birth certificate clip with that dumb ass old lady it didn't come close to being what you said it was it was.
So based on YOUR track record i do not need to waste time watching a clip that likely does not quote Obama saying: "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry" I will however, listen to it if you provide a time code where he says it.
Which it seems you can't and therefore your thread title is inaccurate and a lie.
My track record? Bro - you voted for this shit!
-
Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
"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"
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry#ixzz1OoJO65TL
-
Audio: Obama Tells SF Chronicle He Will Bankrupt Coal Industry
"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"
Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/11/02/hidden-audio-obama-tells-sf-chronicle-he-will-bankrupt-coal-industry#ixzz1OoJO65TL
That is not equal to "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry". the thread title should read: Obama policies make it infeasible to build new coal plants or Obama says policies will bankrupt new coal plants.
And this is good.
Coal needs to go!
(not all at once, in a 20-30 year period)
-
My track record? Bro - you voted for this shit!
I voted for your lies? ::)
-
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! Coal must go! Coal must go! Coal must go!
-
That is not equal to "I promise to bankrupt the coal industry". the thread title should read: Obama policies make it infeasible to build new coal plants or Obama says policies will bankrupt new coal plants.
And this is good.
Coal needs to go!
(not all at once, in a 20-30 year period)
You are playing word games when the sum and substance of the statements, the policies, the programs, etc are clear as day.
-
You are playing word games when the sum and substance of the statements, the policies, the programs, etc are clear as day.
No, you are playing words games. ::)
Your stupid gay ass spin job exposed.
again.
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! 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!
-
No, you are playing words games. ::)
Your stupid gay ass spin job exposed.
again.
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! 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!
Like I said - put it up for a general vote.
-
Just think 33333,
If you had said: "Obama never promised to bankrupt the coal industry but his policies are clearly aimed at bankrupting them."
I would have agreed. lol
BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
You had to keep up with your GAY ASSS SPIN JOB!
::)
-
Like I said - put it up for a general vote.
I could give a rat ass about a general vote. Obama either promised to bankrupt the coal industry or he didn't. plain as that. If he did show me the quote.
Until then you got nothing.
-
Just think 33333,
If you had said: "Obama never promised to bankrupt the coal industry but his policies are clearly aimed at bankrupting them."
I would have agreed. lol
BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOO
You had to keep up with your GAY ASSS SPIN JOB!
::)
When some promises to jack my electric rates, jack the costs of energy, and bankrupt coal companies building plants, the message is loud and clearto all but a tiny fringe element unwilling to see the reality of the situation.
-
When some promises to jack my electric rates, jack the costs of energy, and bankrupt coal companies building plants, the message is loud and clearto all but a tiny fringe element unwilling to see the reality of the situation.
Did Obama promise to bankrupt the coal industry?
-
Did Obama promise to bankrupt the coal industry?
Yes! Watch the clips!
-
Obama Coal Crackdown Sends Message to Industry
By Doug McKelway
Published January 17, 2011
________________________ _______
A move by the Environmental Protection Agency to revoke the long-standing permits for a mammoth coal mine in West Virginia sends a strong signal that President Obama plans to implement key parts of his agenda even though newly empowered Republicans can block his plans in Congress.
In the aftermath of the November elections, many political pundits predicted that the once-unchecked Obama legislative machine would turn it's energies to federal rulemaking as a way to circumvent Republicans on Capitol Hill. And the EPA’s decision last week suggests that those forecasts were spot-on.
Much to the consternation of the West Virginia delegation in Congress, the coal industry, and the working people of the Mountain State, the agency took the unprecedented step of revoking a mining permit that it had issued four years ago to Arch Coal’s Spruce No. 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia.
The revocation prompted unusually harsh responses from West Virginia's two Democratic Senators.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller sent the president a letter which read, in part: "I am writing to express my outrage with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to veto a rigorously reviewed and lawfully issued permit at the Spruce Number 1 Mine in Logan County, West Virginia. This action not only affects this specific permit, but needlessly throws other permits into a sea of uncertainty at a time of great economic distress."
Sen. Joe Manchin issued a statement which appeared to mock the EPA's permitting process.
"According to the EPA, it doesn't matter if you did everything right, if you followed all of the rules,” Manchin wrote. “Why? They just change the rules."
There are many critics of Appalachian surface mining, called “mountaintop removal.” The practice uses heavy explosives to expose seams of coal in the ridges of Southern West Virginia, Eastern Kentucky and Western Virginia. After the demolition crews flatten out the ridge tops into plateaus.
Critics claim that by changing the topography of the ridges of the coalfields, the practice is robbing mountaineers of their heritage. Environmentalists also claim that the rock and rubble from the mines kills fish, wildlife and pollutes water.
Indeed, it was a violation of the Clean Water Act, that prompted the EPA to revoke the permit at the Spruce No. 1 Mine.
"The agency took this action because this proposed mine would use destructive and unsustainable mining practices that jeopardize the health of Appalachian communities and clean water on which they depend,” read the agency’s statement.
The coal industry defends the mining practices and the reclamation efforts that they say leaves usable land for development in the cramped hollows of Appalachia. But the central argument against the EPA’s move is about jobs.
"It's just the arrogance of the EPA,” said Bill Raney of the West Virginia Coal Association. “The people in Logan County want the permit. It's important to the company. It's critically important to Logan County."
The environmental concerns over surface mining were well-known when the EPA first issued the permit in 2007. Since that time, Arch Coal has made millions of dollars in infrastructure investments in the mine, perhaps the largest ever in the region --investments which are now threatened by the EPA permit revocation.
" I don't think it's the American way," says Brad Blakeman, an advisor to former President George W. Bush. "I don’t think we rule retro-actively when businesses invested a lot of money, legally, in a permitting system that was certainly above board and they followed every rule and procedure that EPA had at the time and now to be told after-the-fact that this is now improper or legal, I think is wrong.”
Blakeman says it sends a chilling message to other industries about the power of the Federal government. He suggests that it will be up to the other two branches of our government , the courts and the Congress to decide whether the EPA's revocation of this permit , and perhaps others, stands.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/17/obama-coal-crackdown-sends-message-industry/#ixzz1OoOgSLxB
________________________ _____________
Bankrupting and putting te industry out of business.
-
Obama’s War on Coal Takes a New Turn
by Capitol Confidential
http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2011/06/02/obamas-war-on-coal-takes-a-new-turn
Cap-and-trade legislation may have failed in Congress in 2010, but that doesn’t mean that this is the last we will hear from this economically-harmful policy.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Clean Air Act has been busily proposing and finalizing nearly 200 major policy rules aimed at curbing carbon and other particulate emissions. This despite the fact that the Clean Air Act was never intended for this purpose and widespread opposition exists among the business community, citizens and states.
One particular regulation that is generating deep concern among the business community is the Utility Maximum Achievable Control Technology rule or better know as the MACT rule. This rule would require coal-fired plants to reduce emissions of particular toxic air pollutants.
The big problem with this is MACT would require coal-fired power plants to install very costly equipment to comply with the regulation. In some cases, these companies simply can’t afford to buy the equipment and for others the needed equipment isn’t commercially available.
If this rule is implemented, it would force the shut down of many coal-fired power plants. For states like Ohio, who rely on coal power for 90 percent of their energy, this is a major problem. According to some estimates, enough coal-fired power plants would close to equal about 30-70 gigawatts of electricity generated nationwide. A single gigawatt of energy can power about 750,000 homes.
In a time where national unemployment hovers around 9 percent, these regulations threaten to lead to more job losses and do some serious damage to the economy. The American Legislative Exchange Council estimated that the EPA regulation will eliminate 2.5 million jobs, depress investment by $300 billion by 2014 and reduce GDP by up to $500 billion.
Many states and local communities are already voicing strong concern about the EPA’s regulations. States like Michigan and Utah have claimed that the EPA has overstepped their regulatory jurisdiction and urged the U.S. Congress to intervene and provide much needed oversight over the agency.
More citizens, communities and states need to join in the call for Congress to intervene if the EPA is to be reined before it does the anticipated damage to our economy, which recent speculation has suggested could be headed for more trouble.
-
Yes! Watch the clips!
::)
short answer: He did not promise to bankrupt the coal industry..
-
::)
short answer: He did not promise to bankrupt the coal industry..
No of course not.
"if they want to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing so"
-
No of course not.
"if they want to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing so"
I promise to bankrupt the coal industry ::)
-
"if they want to build a coal plant they will go bankrupt doing so"
Positive!
-
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.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/165651-aep-epa-regs-will-cost-billions-and-result-in-five-closed-plants
Keep supporting this admn you Fu ing morons. Maybe when we have 50 percent ue you will wake the he'll up.
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/165651-aep-epa-regs-will-cost-billions-and-result-in-five-closed-plants
Keep supporting this admn you Fu ing morons. Maybe when we have 50 percent ue you will wake the he'll up.
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! 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!
-
bump for time code
-
bump for time code
Watch the clip. He spells it out clearly enough that even someone as brain dead as the average 95%'er can grasp it. Well, maybe not.
-
Watch the clip. He spells it out clearly enough that even someone as brain dead as the average 95%'er can grasp it. Well, maybe not.
::)
-
Here are obama's own words in the clip:
1. We are going to implement a plan making it impossible for EXISTING coal companies to operate due to yearly regulations imposing draconian costs and mandates - CHECK
2. Our plan will bankrupt any company building a NEW coal plant - CHECK
3. Our plan will skyrocket energy prices - CHECK
4. Biden: "NO NEW COALS PLANTS IN THE USA PERIOD!"
What is so hard for you idiots to understand?
4.
-
Here are obama's own words in the clip:
1. We are going to implement a plan making it impossible for EXISTING coal companies to operate due to yearly regulations imposing draconian costs and mandates - CHECK
2. Our plan will bankrupt any company building a NEW coal plant - CHECK
3. Our plan will skyrocket energy prices - CHECK
4. Biden: "NO NEW COALS PLANTS IN THE USA PERIOD!"
What is so hard for you idiots to understand?
4.
::) ::)
-
::) ::)
95%ism is a mental disorder - seek help.
-
Here are obama's own words in the clip:
1. We are going to implement a plan making it impossible for EXISTING coal companies to operate due to yearly regulations imposing draconian costs and mandates - CHECK
2. Our plan will bankrupt any company building a NEW coal plant - CHECK
3. Our plan will skyrocket energy prices - CHECK
4. Biden: "NO NEW COALS PLANTS IN THE USA PERIOD!"
What is so hard for you idiots to understand?
4.
"I promise to bankrupt the coal industry" Is not in those examples. FAIL!
-
"I promise to bankrupt the coal industry" Is not in those examples. FAIL!
Are you really that fucking dumb? Seriously - WTF is wrong with you? You have gone from an otherwise reasonable person to a complete moon bat in the last month just to support the communist sleeper cell terrorist obama.
Obama is saying he is implementing a plan to make it impossible for EXISTING PLANTS to operate! What does that say to you?
HIS PLAN IS TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS!
-
Are you really that fucking dumb? Seriously - WTF is wrong with you? You have gone from an otherwise reasonable person to a complete moon bat in the last month just to support the communist sleeper cell terrorist obama.
Obama is saying he is implementing a plan to make it impossible for EXISTING PLANTS to operate! What does that say to you?
HIS PLAN IS TO PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS!
Yes 33333 i am part of a communist conspiracy to convert the USA to communism. We are in every level of government and in every level of the private sector.
Obama is a Marxist sleeper cell and leader of all things liberal and we aim to take over the USA. We won't stop at socialism its 100% communism or bust!
Every liberal poster here in this board is part of the communist plot to take over America. So are some of the conservative posters. they are sleeper cells too.
-
95%ism is a mental disorder - seek help.
Goin racial.. thats original ::)
-
3333 is right about a lot of things... sometimes he just gets far too carried away.
QFT
-
QFT
QFT x2
-
3333 is right about a lot of things... sometimes he just gets far too carried away.
What am i wrong about here?
-
I think the whole trying to turn America into a huge communist country thing.
I didn't say you were "wrong"... I said you get "carried away".
It's not exactly "doom and gloom"... I don't agree on some things... I certainly think that with the economy the way it is, any energy independence is better than none, but I also don't think Obama is trying to destroy America with his ideas.
So what do you call implementing plans that directly leads to job losses that he was warned about many times over?
-
Democratic Senator: Environmental Protection Agency Out of Control
CNSNews ^ | June 10, 2011 | Susan Jones
________________________ ________________________ _________________
(CNSNews.com) - Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, the former governor of coal-producing West Virginia, is blasting the Obama administration for using the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal-fueled power plants out of business.
On Thursday, American Electric Power company announced that to comply with a series of EPA regulations, it will close five coal-fired plants -- three in West Virginia and one each in Ohio and Virginia -- at a net cost of 600 jobs.
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.
"We have worked for months to develop a compliance plan that will mitigate the impact of these rules for our 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 coal-fueled power plants," said AEP Chairman and CEO Michael G. Morris.
"The sudden increase in electricity rates and impacts on state economies will be significant at a time when people and states are still struggling,” he added.
The plant closures in West Virginia alone will result in 242 lost jobs -- "and that's simply wrong," Manchin said:
“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.
“It is because of out-of-control agencies like the EPA as well as the need to protect American jobs that I sponsored the REINS Act -- a commonsense measure that will help protect and create jobs by reigning in needless or burdensome regulations, and that will put responsibility back where it belongs – in the hands of the people who are elected to govern and lead this great nation,” Manchin concluded.
During his campaign for president, Barack Obama admitted that "if somebody wants to build a coal fired 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."
VIDEO 36 seconds
The cost of AEP’s compliance plan could range from $6-$8 billion in capital investment through the end of the decade, the company said. That's in addition to the $7.2 billion that AEP has invested since 1990 to reduce emissions from its coal-fired plants.
The company noted that annual emissions of nitrogen oxides from AEP plants are 80 percent lower today than they were in 1990, and sulfur dioxide emissions are 73 percent lower than they were in 1990.
“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 said.
The company said while some jobs will be created from the installation of emissions-reduction equipment, AEP expects a net loss of around 600 power plant jobs with annual wages totaling approximately $40 million as a result of complying with the proposed EPA rules.
“We will continue to work through the EPA process with the hope that the agency will recognize the cumulative impact of the proposed rules and develop a more reasonable compliance schedule. We also will continue talking with lawmakers in Washington about a legislative approach that would achieve the same long-term environmental goals with less negative impact on jobs and the U.S. economy,” Morris 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.”
AEP said the following plants will be closed by the end of 2014:
-- Glen Lyn Plant, Glen Lyn, Va.
-- Kammer Plant, Moundsville, W.Va.
-- Kanawha River Plant, Glasgow, W.Va.
-- Phillip Sporn Plant, New Haven, W.Va.
-- Picway Plant, Lockbourne, Ohio
In addition, AEP plans to scale back power generation at six plants.
________________________ ________________________ _____________________-
Obama = traitor, thief, and destroyer of jobs.
-
Obama’s coal tax:New EPA rules mean 1.4 mm fewer jobs,higher electric bills(BHO keeps his promise)
wash times ^ | 7/12/11
________________________ ________________________ _
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Wednesday finalized “cross-state air pollution” regulations designed to drive coal-plant operators out of business. This noxious rule will choke job creation and ensure that consumers are stricken with higher utility bills every time they switch on the mercury-filled curlicue light bulbs they also will be forced to buy.
Beginning Jan. 1, industrial facilities in 28 Eastern and Central states will be subject to draconian restrictions on emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, pollutants that potentially can cross borders. It’s all being done in the name of promoting health, but an overzealous and unaccountable bureaucracy is ignoring the devastating toll on the economy’s wellness.
Coal plants will be forced to install new scrubber equipment that provides marginal improvement in air quality at tremendous expense. This cost will be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher electricity costs. NERA Economic Consulting studied the impact of a pair of EPA rules affecting coal and estimated the extra cost would total $184 billion through the year 2030. This includes $72 billion in capital costs that coal companies will have to pay right now to comply. Electric bills will jump 12 percent by 2016 with areas such as Kentucky and Tennessee seeing a 24 percent increase. Employment will drop by a net 1.4 million jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
congrats you pieces of shit who voted for obama. I hope you are proud of yourselves.
-
EDITORIAL: Jacking up your electric bill
More regulations on industry will hurt the flickering economy
The Washington Times
8:08 p.m., Wednesday, July 27, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jul/27/jacking-up-your-electric-bill/print
America faces a European-style debt crisis, but you wouldn't know it from observing what's happening on Capitol Hill. At a Senate committee's request, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday issued an analysis of proposed renewable (RES) and clean-energy standards (CES). The federal government has grown so large that it's actually studying how to spend money to make electricity more expensive.
In fact, it's a White House priority. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for 80 percent of America's electricity to come from windmills and solar panels by 2035 as part of his Win the Future (WTF) campaign. That can only happen if federal laws and regulations are used to shut down cheaper sources of power, such as coal. As CBO concluded, "Either an RES or CES would also raise the average cost of generating electricity in the United States because, in the absence of the standard, regulators and generators would generally choose the lowest-cost method of producing electricity." In a sane world, that would be the end of the story, but it isn't.
Currently, coal provides 45 percent of our power and nuclear 19 percent. Wind accounts for 2 percent, and solar power is so weak it earns an asterisk. That's not going to change, so federal bureaucrats want to tell private companies they must produce 20 percent or 25 percent of their electricity from inefficient, intermittent sources using a complex scheme of production credits to impose their will on the industry.
Mr. Obama also has opened up the piggy bank and doled out $5.6 billion in stimulus funding, 84 percent of which went to windmills - a market dominated by General Electric. Last year, that company just happened to spend $39 million on lobbying and $2 million in campaign donations. Its push for a pro-subsidy agenda has paid off - for them, not us.
The average retail price for a megawatt hour of electricity is $91, but if it happens to come from a windmill, Uncle Sam will write the owner a check for $23. That $23 still comes out of the pockets of consumers, but it shows up on the tax bill, not the electric bill. If consumers were aware of the true cost of solar and wind power, they wouldn't want either.
Likewise, the public wouldn't care for higher corporate average fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards if they knew that meant driving tiny, dangerous and boring European-style city cars. That hasn't stopped House Democrats including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry A. Waxman and Rep. Edward J. Markey from sending the president a letter Wednesday demanding repressive fuel-efficiency standards in the name of fighting "carbon pollution."
The days when power plants and automobiles belched out toxic clouds of black soot are over (except in the case of mass-transit buses). That reality forced leftists to invent a new problem to justify their marketplace meddling. When they reference carbon, they're talking about carbon dioxide, the harmless gas that's the natural byproduct of respiration. Using their terms, everyone who breathes becomes a "polluter." CAFE and renewable-energy standards are about increasing Washington's power, not clean air or the environment.
Mr. Obama will announce his CAFE decision on Friday. We're not holding our breath in anticipation of him making the right call.
-
EPA regs force closure of Texas energy facilities, eliminate 500 jobs
The Daily Caller ^ | 09/12/2011 | Matthew Boyle
Texas energy company Luminant announced on Monday new burdensome Environmental Protection Agency regulations are forcing it to close several facilities, which will result in about 500 job losses.
The company will be idling — stopping the usage of — two energy generating units. It will also cease extracting lignite from three different Texas mines.
The EPA regulation Luminant cites as too burdensome is the new Cross-State Air Pollution rule, which requires Texas power generators to make “dramatic reductions” in emissions beginning on January 1, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW CAN THIS DISGUSTING COMMUNIST WRETCH CLAME TO BE FOR MORE JOBS WHEN HE IS SPENDING EVERY WAKING MOMENT DESTROYING THEM?
-
Helen Whalen Cohen
EPA To Shut Down 20% of Coal Plants in 2012
9/24/2011 | Email Helen Whalen Cohen | All Posts By Blogger
Sign-Up
This article is a few days old, but it is worth a mention nonetheless. Susan Kraemer at CleanTechnica can barely contain her excitement at the prospect of environmental regulations. In an article titled "Obama's EPA Cues 130 Billion Race to Cut Pollution By 2015", she reports that the EPA will shut down 20 percent of coal plants through the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. She acknowledges the cost of these regulations ($130 billion), but insists that this is actually good for the economy.
How, pray tell, does $130 billion in regulatory expenses transform into a $130 billion boon?
Because it will push coal plants out of the way and free up energy production for green technology, of course!
The EPA will shut down an estimated 20% of the nation’s coal plants through the ground-level ozone rule (the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) ) through cap and trade that is about to be implemented in January 2012. Opponents of the Obama administration’s “over-reaching” EPA say these are costly regulations. Financial analysts estimate that the cost of this rule will be $130 billion by 2015. But if that figure is correct, that’s good news for the US economy.
Because there is another way of looking at that $130 billion “expense”. One industry’s expense is another industry’s sales bonanza. For the coal industry’s balance sheet, it is an expense, but think about who is going to perform this $130 billion cleanup – fairies? Hardly. This is a job for real American industries.
In the most depressed economy since the Great Depression, a slew of US companies will be selling the clean energy solutions (and adding employees to manufacture them) as coal companies must begin a race to have the least polluting coal plants.
Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/
Real American industries? Like Solyndra? Given all the green scandals that are coming to light, now might not be the best time to advocate these types of solutions. The kicker, though, comes in the last paragraph of the article:
A hand-full of coal industry plutocrats are simply not able to inject $130 billion into the US economy just taking cruise trips around the Mediterranean or whatever it is that they do with the profits that they don’t spend cleaning up.
If the concern is that coal plants don't put enough money into the economy, then what's going to happen once there are fewer of them? My guess is that we will be left on the hook for more large loans to green technology companies that eventually go bankrupt, and other goodies that could only come about when people like Kraemer decide they know best how companies should spend their profits.
-
New EPA regulations will cause 183,000 jobs to be lost - study
Pennenergy ^ | 9/23/2011 | staff
Posted on September 26, 2011 6:55:29 AM EDT by tobyhill
Source: American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity
As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to vote on the TRAIN Act, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, released a comprehensive analysis conducted by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) showing that several of EPA’s new and proposed regulations would lead to 183,000 lost jobs per year and significant increases in the price of electricity and natural gas.
“America’s coal-fueled electric industry has invested nearly $100 billion, so far, to achieve impressive reductions in air pollution. Now is the wrong time for EPA to blindly push ahead without even pausing long enough to understand how all of these rules could hurt American jobs and consumers,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of ACCCE.
The analysis, done on behalf of ACCCE by NERA, relies on state-of-the-art modeling tools, as well as government data for almost all of its assumptions. NERA’s analysis projects that EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and proposed Maximum Achievable Control Technology, coal combustion residuals, and cooling water intake requirements for power plants would, over the 2012-2020 period:
•Cost the power industry $21 billion per year; •Cause an average loss of 183,000 jobs per year; •Increase electricity costs by double digits in many regions of the U.S.; •Cost consumers over $50 billion more for natural gas; and •Reduce the disposable income of the average American family by $270 a year.
(Excerpt) Read more at pennenergy.com ...
Rot in hell Obama.
-
EPA objects to 19 surface ooal Permits
The Hazard Herald ^ | 10/04/2011 | Cris Ritchie
The federal Environmental Protection Agency last week objected to 19 permits for surface coal mines in Kentucky, objections that some say could have a negative impact on the state’s economy.
Read more: Hazard Herald (KY) - EPA objects to 19 surface coal permits at LINK!
(Excerpt) Read more at hazard-herald.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Electric Bills About To Spike
The Daily Beast ^ | October 5, 2011 | Laura Coloruso
(Utilities across the country need more money for grid updates and pollution controls, and are passing the huge bill on to consumers. Laura Colarusso on why electricity bills are rising.)
Already weary of high gas prices and 9.1 percent unemployment, many Americans are about to get another kick in the wallet thanks to large increases in their electricity bills.
From Alaska to Georgia and Wyoming to Florida, utilities are seeking permission to pass on hundreds of millions of dollars in new charges to customers to help upgrade aging infrastructure and build new or retrofitted power plants that comply with tougher environmental regulations, a Daily Beast review of regulatory filings has found.
The influx of requests, many still pending before state regulators, has left energy experts convinced that electricity prices will be on the rise for the foreseeable future as the industry struggles to modernize its aging infrastructure.
“They desperately need to upgrade,” says Bill Richardson, the former New Mexico governor and Clinton-era energy secretary who once famously called America a superpower with a Third World power grid. “You’re seeing rate hikes everywhere because this is a widespread, national problem.”
The pending rate hikes are bad news for poor and elderly Americans on tight budgets, as Congress and the White House begin making cuts to programs that help people cope with their utility bills. One program in particular, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, was slashed during the budget negotiations earlier this year, and is slated for even deeper reductions this fall.
During the budget battle, Congress cut $500 million from the program to bring this year’s total to $4.7 billion, down from a high of $5.1 billion in 2010. For next year, the Obama administration requested only $2.6 billion, leaving states with roughly half the assistance they’ve had in the past. The White House rationale relies on the assumption that energy prices will decline, but regulatory filings have indicated the opposite trend is in store.
In the latest round of budget negotiations, House Republicans have suggested adding $822 million on top of Obama’s request for next year, but the gap could still result in rationing.
Already this summer, Illinois cut back on its energy-assistance grants, forcing seniors and poor families to forego air conditioning during the sizzling August heat. And governors of cold-weather states such as Michigan’s Rick Synder and Maine’s Paul LePage—both Republicans—are fighting the drop in funding, warning that people could freeze. Northeastern Democrats are equally concerned by the president’s proposed cuts.
“During these tough economic times, it is critical that we both fully fund LIHEAP and ensure that states have timely access to the funding they need,” Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-CT, says. “These changes could prevent states from being able to respond quickly to severe cold weather and leave the most vulnerable Americans out in the cold.”
The Beast’s review of regulatory filings found at least 16 utilities covering 6.1 million customers are seeking rate hikes of 5 percent or more. Almost half of those want increases of 10 percent or more.
And several more utilities already have received approval for large increases.
For instance, close to three million customers in parts of Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia that get their electricity from American Electric Power have seen their rates increase between 48 and 88 percent over the last few years. Those rates are expected to rise an additional 10 to 35 percent in the next three years. The reason? AEP officials are quick to blame environmental regulations that they say are going to cost the company $8 billion in compliance and upgrades.
AEP, which operates in 11 states, says it is raising rates because it needs the cash to upgrade its infrastructure. The company plans to retire five coal plants—which amount to 6,000 megawatts of generation— and build at least two natural gas plants by the end of this decade.
“None of this is cheap,” says Mike Morris, AEP’s chief executive officer. Morris predicts that rolling brownouts also could loom on the horizon because the current system can’t keep up with demand, which is expected to grow by 44 percent by 2035.
Electricity rates were static for most of the 1990s and early 2000s. According to the Energy Information Administration, the average residential customer saw his or her bill increase just seven-tenths of a cent per kilowatt between 1998 and 2004. Between 2005 and 2010, the average price spiked about 2.5 cents and then flattened out over last year as natural gas prices dropped, EIA says.
Dozens of factors affect rate increases, but one of the biggest is that much of the transmission system was built at a time when the radio was still the main form of entertainment. The power grid simply can’t keep up with modern demand as more people use more appliances, computers, and gadgets.
-
Come on Team Traitor - defend this shit.
Don't need to defend it. Coal is a pollutant, causes health problems including cancer, and destroys the land along with making us more dependent on other countries. We need to move to solar and wind technology along with biodiesel to preserve our enviroment and reduce our dependence on other countries
-
Don't need to defend it. Coal is a pollutant, causes health problems including cancer, and destroys the land along with making us more dependent on other countries. We need to move to solar and wind technology along with biodiesel to preserve our enviroment and reduce our dependence on other countries
LMFAO - poverty and destitution is a worse pollutant to most people.
But then again - your goal , LIKE I HAVE SAID OF COMMUNIST ENVIRO FREAKS, is to have everyone in tents and under candles.
-
Report: EPA regs will shut down 28 GW of energy production
Hot Air ^ | October 8,2011 | Jazz Shaw
Posted on October 8, 2011 4:10:09 PM EDT by Hojczyk
Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the “transport rule” and the “toxics rule” (Utility MACT). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy. According to our report:
EPA Regulations Will Close At Least 28 GW of Generating Capacity
EPA modeling and power-plant operator announcements show that EPA regulations will close at least 28 gigawatts (GW) of American generating capacity, the equivalent of closing every power plant in the state of North Carolina or Indiana. Also, 28 GW is 8.9 percent of our total coal generating capacity.
Current Retirements Almost Twice As High As EPA Predicted
EPA’s power plant-level modeling projected that Agency regulations would close 14.5 GW of generating capacity. That number rises to 28 GW when including additional announced retirements related to EPA rules, almost twice the amount EPA projected. Moreover, this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.
Announced and Projected Retirements Higher Than Worst Case Scenarios
Analysis by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), the entity in charge of grid reliability, projected that EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule would close 20 GW of generating capacity. This list indicates that at least 28 GW will retire. EPA’s Transport Rule and Toxics Rule push U.S. energy security past the NERC worst case scenario.
Lest you think this is a problem mostly being faced by Texas, think again. Is your home state on this list?
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
-
IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA RegulationsCoal
Institute for Energy Research ^ | October 7, 2011
Posted on October 8, 2011 6:45:47 PM EDT by george76
So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
The United States has the world’s largest coal resources. In fact we have 50 percent more coal than Russia, the country with the next largest reserves. But coal use in the United States is under assault.
Before becoming President, Barak Obama promised to bankrupt coal companies. As President, he has tried various strategies to force Americans to use less coal. After failing to pass a national energy tax (cap-and-trade), the President vowed to continue his attack on coal stating, there is “more than one way to skin a cat.”
Currently, EPA is leading the Obama administration’s assault on coal with a number of new regulations. Two of the most important are the “transport rule” and the “toxics rule” (Utility MACT). Combined, these regulations will systematically reduce access to affordable and reliable energy
(Excerpt) Read more at instituteforenergyresear ch.org ...
-
EPA to Implement New Coal-Killing Rules 13 Days Before FERC Hearing on Their Potential Effects
Big Government ^ | 10-21-11 | Dan Riehl
Posted on October 21, 2011 7:06:05 AM EDT by afraidfortherepublic
Some called it a gaffe when current Vice President Joe Biden was caught on video saying, “No Coal Plants Here in America,” during the 2008 campaign. Now, thanks to a bit of curious timing, the Obama administration may be a step closer to achieving that very thing, destroying up to 1.4 million jobs in the progress. The move will also lead to a significant increase in energy prices; however, it may be too late to do anything about all that by the time the information comes to light. And yet some think Wall Street, not Washington, is the problem.
Here’s the issue–one part of it, anyway. Connect the dots, beginning with this Federal Energy Regulatory Commission item.
FERC has scheduled a hearing next month to discuss the reliability of the power grid, particularly in regards to concerns stemming from new EPA regulations. Critics of the EPA have made reliability a central theme of their attack on new pollution regulations for power plants and pressed FERC to evaluate their concerns. The hearing is set for November 29.
That sounds good, until one realizes that the EPA intends to put some of said new regulations in effect, over the objections of many states, before their likely impact is discussed more broadly.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Tuesday it was committed to finalizing a standard on mercury emissions by November 16 after 25 states urged a court to force the agency to delay the rule. “EPA is committed to completing the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards — the first-ever national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants,” the EPA said in a release.
The issue may be best summed up in a letter from Senator Inhofe to the EPA. Add it up – fewer jobs, higher electric bills for the middle class and bigger government with more bad-for-business regulations. But it’s not even news, because everyone is focused on Wall Street. Wow! I wonder who thought that one up? Community organizers-in-chief work in mysterious ways, or so I’ve heard.
“Today in Congress there is bipartisan concern that the Obama EPA’s Utility MACT rule will result in a significant number of plant closures, increase electricity rates for every American, and, along with the transport rule, destroy nearly 1.4 million jobs,” Senator Inhofe said. “Now we have learned that EPA has failed to collaborate with FERC to consider how Utility MACT will affect electric reliability. In fact, FERC Commissioner Moeller went as far as to say that ‘the Commission has not acted or studied or provided assistance to any agency, including EPA.’
-
Obama set to kill off coal industry?
UPI ^ | Oct. 27, 2011 | UPI
Posted on Thursday, October 27, 2011 1:33:56 PM by Qbert
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 (UPI) -- The proposed merger of two federal agencies managing public land and mining is part of a White House effort to wipe out the U.S. coal industry, a critic said.
U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called for the merger of the Bureau of Land Management and the Office of Surface Mining.
U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, said he had "serious" concerns about the decision to "suddenly and dramatically" change management of coal mines and BLM lands by U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.
"The Obama administration has not made secret its desire to put an end to America's coal mining industry and this appears to be one more step in that direction," Hastings said.
Hastings said BLM and OSM have separate duties. OSM oversees surface coal mining regulations while BLM manages more than 245 million acres primarily in 12 Western states, including Alaska.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources, said he had "serious" concerns about the decision to "suddenly and dramatically" change management of coal mines and BLM lands by U.S. President Barack Obama's administration.
"The Obama administration has not made secret its desire to put an end to America's coal mining industry and this appears to be one more step in that direction," Hastings said.
________________________ ___________
Plainly obvious to anyone paying any attention to what this communist neo-terrorist sleeper cell marxist ghetto thug parasite POTUS is doing.
-
Obama's Gold rush of Solar Subsidies (Skyrocketing electric rates as promised)
NYT ^ | November 12, 2011 | Eric Lipton
The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.
The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
-
Obama's Gold rush of Solar Subsidies (Skyrocketing electric rates as promised)
NYT ^ | November 12, 2011 | Eric Lipton
The project is also a marvel in another, less obvious way: Taxpayers and ratepayers are providing subsidies worth almost as much as the entire $1.6 billion cost of the project. Similar subsidy packages have been given to 15 other solar- and wind-power electric plants since 2009.
The government support — which includes loan guarantees, cash grants and contracts that require electric customers to pay higher rates — largely eliminated the risk to the private investors and almost guaranteed them large profits for years to come. The beneficiaries include financial firms like Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, conglomerates like General Electric, utilities like Exelon and NRG — even Google.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
You gotta wonder if there is any end in sight.
-
November 18, 2011 10:54am
0 Comments
Obama USDA delays shale drilling, up to 200k jobs
by Joel Gehrke Commentary Staff Writer
President Obama's United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.
“Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed," announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. "The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan." The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly "will focus solely on how it could affect forest land," the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, "and not how it could affect groundwater."
Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling "could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley," even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation.
The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015.
"The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production," House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a hearing pertaining to hydraulic fracturing. "It’s a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil."
Salazar denied that suggestion, noting the sales of mineral leases over the last two years, but he also affirmed environmentalist concerns. "The increasing use of hydraulic fracturing has raised a number of concerns about the potential impacts on water quality and availability, particularly with respect to the chemical composition of fracturing fluids and the methods used."
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-usda-delays-shale-drilling-200k-jobs
-
Obama's EPA is killing the economy with costly rules
By: Examiner Editorial | 11/26/11 8:05 PM
Anybody who wonders why the U.S. economy continues to stagger along with 9 percent unemployment and an anemic 2 percent quarterly growth rate need look no further than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Under President Obama's hand-picked administrator, Lisa Jackson, EPA is hog-tying the economy with dozens of proposed major new rules. One of them, which is aimed at coal-fired power plants that generate electricity, will add at least $18 billion in compliance costs by 2020. As Kathleen White of the Texas Public Policy Center told the House Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year, "never in its 40-year history has EPA promulgated -- at the same time -- so many costly new regulatory dictates. The rules on track to go into effect in the next three years could cost more than $1 trillion and result in hundreds of thousands of jobs lost."
It's not just the raft of new rules that is killing economic growth, however. Jackson and her EPA minions have been purposefully slow-walking the agency's already hideously complex process for approving permits in a crucial sector of the energy industry. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., asked the EPA inspector general to review the agency's permitting process for surface mining permit applications in the Appalachian region over the last two years. The EPA IG found that of the 185 permit applications it identified, only 56, or less than one-third of the total, had been approved. Almost half of the 185 required at least 731 days for EPA to complete its evaluations. That compares with the 144 days EPA claims is its average evaluation period for all mining permit applications. At least a third of the 185 were simply withdrawn from consideration, presumably because the applicants despaired of ever getting a response from EPA.
The IG report confirmed Inhofe's prior suspicion that EPA has been "systematically slowing the pace of permit evaluations in Appalachia. Even more troubling is that as our nation works to find ways to cut our national debt, EPA has increased its budget and staff to evaluate these permits. Instead of spending more and more taxpayer dollars to wage this war on affordable energy, the Obama-EPA should be processing and approving these permits to spur job creation, especially in areas such as the Appalachia that have significant employment needs. Equally important is the potential domestic energy production that these permits would provide."
Because 40 percent of the electricity that Americans depend on daily is generated by power plants fueled by coal -- much of which comes from Appalachia -- sluggardly permit processing by EPA should concern everybody. And let's not forget that Jackson works for a president who before he was elected promised that his environmental policies would "necessarily cause electricity prices to skyrocket."
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/11/obamas-epa-killing-economy-costly-rules#ixzz1ewC9FJQ0
and the Obamabots are still in the dark why the economy still sucks.
-
Badly-Needed Alaskan Oil Is Kept From Market By Obama Decision
Investor's Business Daily ^ | November 30, 2001 | IBD staff
Energy Policy: The same administration that says we can and should get oil from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska is blocking a bridge needed to get it to market on environmental grounds.
In his May 14 weekly radio address, President Obama called for annual lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), not necessarily out of any conviction that increased domestic energy supply is good for prices and national security, but basically to perpetuate the myth that the oil companies refuse to drill in leased or leasable areas.
While he restricts oil production in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off the north coast of Alaska, and imposes outright moratoriums on federal lands and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Obama wants the appearance, if not the reality, of supporting domestic energy production from fossil fuels.
The NPRA, 23 million acres of North Slope wilderness, was established in 1923 by President Harding to ensure a reserve of oil for the U.S. Navy.
Obama has cited it as an example of areas where the oil companies could drill but are reluctant to, knowing full well his administration has walled off preferred areas offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Taking Aim At Oil And Gas (Aim of Obama tax is NOT to raise money)
The Albuquerque Journal ^ | November 28, 2011 | Winthrop Quigley
In the ocean of federal budgetary red ink, the tax breaks enjoyed by oil companies and targeted for elimination by the Obama administration are a ripple.
The Congressional Budget Office projects the federal government will spend $973 billion more in 2012 than it takes in. President Barack Obama earlier this year proposed increasing oil industry taxes by $3.5 billion in 2012, 0.4 percent of the total deficit.
The administration’s goal is not to raise money. According to congressional testimony by the Treasury Department, eliminating some preferential tax treatment for oil companies will divert investment from a 20th-century to a 21st-century energy economy.
Carol Mayo Cochran, an Albuquerque-based certified public accountant, says the administration’s plan will indeed divert investment away from oil production, but it will be the small independent oil and natural gas producers based in places like Farmington, Hobbs and Artesia that pay the biggest price. That’s because the tax-advantaged partnerships that such companies use to raise capital for exploration and production will become riskier and less profitable.
The Exxon-Mobils of the world will hardly notice the changes, said Cochran, a principal at REDW LLC.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Will The EPA Choke Oil Shale Production
Investor's Business Daily ^ | December 1, 2011 | IBD staff
Posted on December 1, 2011 8:20:19 PM EST by raptor22
New Energy: The latest salvo in the administration's war on energy may be new rules and permits to regulate a process to get oil and gas from porous rock, sacrificing jobs and economic growth while under review.
There are a few areas of the U.S. that are booming. Two of these are in North Dakota and Pennsylvania, states that sit atop two massive shale rock formations, the Bakken and the Marcellus.
Extraction of oil and natural gas from these formations have created jobs and economic growth in the midst of a stagnant and parched economy.
The oil and gas is extracted from this porous rock by a process called hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."
The process involves the injection under high pressure of fluids, mainly water with a few chemical additives, to fracture the porous shale rock and allow the release and extraction of the oil and gas trapped inside the porous rock. Environmentalists contend these chemical additives contaminate groundwater supplies.
The fluid used in the process is 99.5% sand and water. There are other chemicals ranging from the citric acid found in soda to benzene, which are used to reduce friction and fight microbes.
Shale formations in which fracking is used are thousands of feet deep. Drinking water aquifers are generally only a hundred feet deep. There's solid rock between them.
Yet the Environmental Protection Agency, bowing to environmentalists' pressure and faithful to the administration mantra that fossil fuels are harmful and obsolete, is preparing to nip this economic boom in the bud by regulating it to death.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Obama threatens veto if pipeline decision is added to payroll tax cut
By Ben Geman - 12/07/11 03:52 PM ET
President Obama has warned Republicans he'll veto an extension of the payroll tax if it includes a measure forcing quick approval of the Keystone oil sands pipeline.
“Any effort to try to tie Keystone to the payroll tax cut I will reject,” Obama told reporters Wednesday after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the White House.
Obama said he would not accept a payroll tax holiday bill if Republicans add “extraneous” provisions, including a measure that would force quick approval of the controversial Keystone pipeline that would run from Canada to the southern U.S.
House Republicans pushing for approval of the pipeline to bring crude from Alberta’s oil sands projects to Gulf Coast refineries have discussed linking it to extension of the tax holiday. The payroll tax cut extension is a Democratic and White House priority.
The Obama administration recently punted a final permitting decision on the controversial project until after the 2012 election as the State Department continues analyzing TransCanada Corp’s proposed pipeline.
Republicans in the House and Senate, who call the delay a political decision to appease Obama’s environmental base, are pushing bills that would mandate a much faster decision.
Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), said Republicans welcome a showdown over the pipeline.
“If President Obama threatens to veto it over a provision that creates American jobs, that’s a fight we’re ready to have,” he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
More from The Hill's E2 Wire blog:
♦ Gore 'sorry' Gingrich repudiates Pelosi ad
♦ Sen. Boxer: Climate change deniers ‘endangering humankind’
♦ Huntsman: GOP field should 'recognize science for what it is'
♦ GOP asks EPA to prove it isn’t inflating greenhouse gas figures
♦ White House threatens to veto Republican farm-dust bill
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But Obama said extension of the payroll tax cut is something that Republicans in both chambers should support on the merits, arguing it should not be held “hostage.”
“If the payroll tax cut is attached to a whole bunch of extraneous issues . . . than it is not something that I am going to accept,” Obama said.
“I don’t expect to have to veto it because I expect they are going to have enough sense over on Capitol Hill to do the people’s business and not try and load it up with a bunch of politics,” Obama said.
The State Department announced last month that it is analyzing revised routes for the pipeline that would move it away from the ecologically sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a process that is not slated to be complete until 2013.
Senate Republicans unveiled a measure last week that would require State to make a decision within 60 days on a permit for the project, which has been under review for several years.
House Republicans, meanwhile, are promoting new legislation that would hand the permitting decision to the independent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It’s crafted in a way that significantly limits FERC’s discretion to reject the project.
The pipeline is tricky political terrain for the White House.
Environmental groups bitterly oppose the project due to greenhouse gas emissions and other concerns, while a number of labor unions – another key part of Obama's political base – back the project.
It’s also a source of tension with the Canadian government, which backs the project. But Harper, speaking after his meeting with Obama that focused on border and trade issues, downplayed friction with Obama over the pipeline.
“He has an open mind as to what the final decision may or may not be,” Harper said.
Obama on Wednesday rejected GOP claims that he delayed the final decision for political reasons, noting that both Democrats and Republicans have expressed concerns with the project.
Obama has said the final State Department decision will balance an array of environmental and economic considerations.
“It is my job as president of the United States to make sure that a process is followed that examines all the options, looks at all the consequences before a decision is made,” Obama said
Updated at 4:38 p.m.
Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/197901-obama-would-reject-gop-bid-to-tie-payroll-tax-cut-bill-to-keystone-pipeline-decision
-
AP IMPACT: EPA rules threaten older power plants
Associated Press ^ | Dec 19, 2011, 7:47 AM EST | DINA CAPPIELLO
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.
Together, those plants - some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country - produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won't cause homes to go dark.
The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.
The survey, based on interviews with 55 power plant operators and on the Environmental Protection Agency's own prediction of power plant retirements, rebuts claims by critics of the regulations and some electric power producers.
They have predicted the EPA rules will kill coal as a power source and force blackouts, basing their argument on estimates from energy analysts, congressional offices, government regulators, unions and interest groups. Many of those studies inflate the number of plants retiring by counting those shutting down for reasons other than the two EPA rules.
The AP surveyed electricity-generating companies about what they plan to do and the effects on power supply and jobs. It was the first survey of its kind.
The estimate also was based in part on EPA computer models that predict which fossil-fuel generating units are likely to be retired early to comply with the rules, and which were likely to be retired anyway.
The agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts, enough power for more than 11 million households, will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the two new rules...
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Awesome job Obama - BTW - F U to every dirtbag voting for this commie leech again.
-
Power Plant Closures Due to Environmental Regulations to Take Toll on Towns
Fox News ^ | 12/20/11
Power Plant Closures Due to Environmental Regulations to Take Toll on Towns
Published December 20, 2011 | Associated Press
For more than 90 years, the coal-fired power plant in Glen Lyn, Va., has been churning out electricity and contributing to local prosperity. Of late, it has generated nearly a quarter of the revenue for the $1 million budget of the town.
Yet when the plant ultimately shuts down to comply with new federal air pollution regulations by the end of 2014, says Town Manager Howard Spencer, so too might the community of 200.
"If the town lost all of that revenue," he says, "we would struggle to even continue to be incorporated."
An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Higher electricity bills, cleaner air under new rules (EPA again runs amuck)
MSNBC ^ | 12/21/2011 | msnbc
After a two-month delay, the Obama administration was expected Wednesday to unveil new rules for coal-fired power plants that mean costly investments passed on to consumers, but also health benefits.
A "significant Clean Air Act announcement" was set for 2 p.m. ET by the Environmental Protection Agency. Both environmentalists and industry were gearing up for the final say on rules covering mercury and other toxic emissions from power plants fueled by coal.
Power plant operators who have trouble meeting a three-year deadline for compliance will be given some flexibility under a deal struck between the White House and the EPA, the Washington Post reported last Friday.
Citing EPA estimates, the Washington Post said the rules will cost utilities $10.6 billion by 2016 to install special control equipment known as "scrubbers."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
-
Obama Sides with Whackos over Workers- Kills Another 3000 Jobs
Townhall.com ^ | December 22, 2011 | John Ransom
The EPA went last-minute Christmas shopping for votes this year to stick in their boss’, um… ballot-box shaped stocking. Once he realized his economic plans wouldn’t create jobs, Obama has been like an employment Typhoid Mary, killing jobs wherever he can in order to boost support from his whack-job supporters in the hopes for some votes, any votes.
In a desperate bid to win back support of the enviro-whackos who have been critical of the Obama administration, the EPA issued a final ruling on MACT standards that will shutter up to 60 coal-fired power plants, costing an estimated 3000 jobs in the plants alone.
Merry Christmas!
A typical coal-fired plant employs an average of 54 workers.
The move was blasted by Congressman John Sullivan, Vice Chairman of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee as the “EPA gone rogue.”
“Utility Mact is the most expensive rule EPA has ever written for power plants – its going to layoff American workers,” said Sullivan, “could shut down over 60 power plants all together and raise the price families pay to heat their homes this winter. EPA has gone rouge – they are catering to radical left wing environmentalists instead of presenting a workable plan that protects the environment as well as American jobs.”
EPA said that by shutting down the plants, they’ll be preventing 17,000 deaths per year caused by polar bear cannibals, er, strike that…by pollution…yeah… pollution. Of course they provide little-to-no data to support the claim. Indeed, in one place the EPA revises the number downward to 4,200-11,000 global warming, er,...pollution deaths. With the many global crises going on, it’s hard to keep track of which crisis the Democrats are saving us from on any given day.
The EPA trotted out the new death statistics in the spring after meeting opposition to the new MACT standards by those silly people who would like to keep their jobs and the rest of us who’d like to pay reasonable prices for electricity, presumably so that we can all keep our Chevy Volts going- 33 miles between a 12 hour charge!. You know? When we aren’t driving our Nat Gas powered Pelosi-mobiles.
Previously the EPA had argued hard for poor visibility as the driving force behind the new regulations. But that argument ran into a buzz saw of opposition called common sense, aka, the House Energy and Power Subcommittee.
Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, told Power Engineering Magazine that the rule will cost more than just jobs and coal generation.
"It will increase the cost of power, undermining the international competitiveness of almost two dozen manufacturing industries," Segal said.
The Wall Street Journal estimates that the scheme will cost the industry $10 billion, which of course will be passed along to consumers.
Of course the consumers won’t be hit the worst. It’s the employees who are being told just a few days before Christmas that they will have to find new jobs, who are the ones that will pay for Obama’s electioneering.
But Obama’s already made it clear that if he has to pick between workers and his far-left base, he’s going with his base- at least until he can turn on them again; you know, like he did with Hispanics, Blacks, Unions and once-upon-a-time enviro-whackos?
Terry O’Sullivan, General President of LIUNA – the Laborers’ International Union of North America has recently blasted Obama for double dealing against American jobs on behalf of the enviro-whackos like he did on the Keystone Oil Pipeline. O’Sullivan represents pipefitters and others who would be employed on the Keystone project.
“Environmentalists formed a circle around the White House and within days the Obama Administration chose to inflict a potentially fatal delay to a project that is not just a pipeline,” said O’Sullivan when Obama punted on the pipeline project to side with whackos over workers, “but is a lifeline for thousands of desperate working men and women. The Administration chose to support environmentalists over jobs – job-killers win, American workers lose. Environmental groups from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the Sierra Club may be dancing in the streets, having delayed and possibly stopped yet another project that would put men and women back to work. While they celebrate, pipeline workers will continue to lose their homes and livelihoods.”
Merry Christmas, Mr. Obama. You should be proud.
Still, the whack-job left remains skeptical of Obama largely because they have yet to see him confiscate your home, my home and all other homes with up-to-date mortgages. Remember: This is a group of people who think recycling is dropping “trou” in Zucotti Park.
OWS groups have been “occupying” both Obama’s Iowa campaign headquarters and the headquarters of the Democrat National Committee to protest Obama’s sellout to Wall Street.
While protests from the hard left continue, expect Obama to show he’s not a sellout by selling out to the radicals over American workers who not only install indoor plumbing for a living, but also know how to use it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Obama is achieving his goal of higher energy costs
By: Examiner Editorial | 12/21/11 8:05 PM
.
Damian Dovarganes/AP file
CNBC reported earlier this week that the typical American family will spend the largest portion ever of its budget — 8.4 percent — on gasoline this year. With 14 million Americans either out of work or underemployed, a lot of folks aren't buying Christmas gifts or celebrating with a little holiday cheer this year. As Washington Examiner columnist John Stossel makes clear elsewhere in today's edition, a major reason for the continued high and underemployment is found in the massive economic uncertainties that will result if the U.S. Supreme Court allows Obamacare to go forward. Businesses aren't replacing current workers or adding new ones in great part because they simply cannot know how much doing so would cost them until the future of Obamacare is decided. This is a textbook case of the unintended consequences that inevitably accompany grand Big Government programs.
But there is another factor behind the economic stagnation produced by President Obama's policies -- soaring energy costs -- that hurt all Americans, not just those without jobs or who are trapped in lower-paying positions. As CNBC reported earlier this week, the typical American family will spend the largest portion ever of its budget -- 8.4 percent -- on gasoline this year. Economists expect the average price of a gallon of gas to be $3.53, a 76-cent increase over 2010.
Growing world demand for gas caused by economic expansion in China and India only partially explains this increase. Obama's environmental and energy policies are also a key reason why prices are constantly heading higher. The American oil and gas industry is producing record domestic yields these days, thanks to the vastly increased efficiency made possible by technological advances like horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
That ought to be good news because increased supply normally means lower prices. But the energy industry's ability to process oil into gasoline is greatly handicapped by environmental regulations that are so stringent that it's been nearly four decades since a new refinery was built in this country. Plus, existing refineries face a complicated web of government-mandated blends of gas with additives like ethanol that are designed to reduce emissions and that vary by geographical region and seasons of the year. That means refineries frequently must stop producing one blend to change to production of a different one.
Add to these factors the dramatic decrease in the number of new drilling permits issued by the government under Obama, longer waiting times for those that are issued, and the president's success in barring expansion of oil and gas exploration and production to federal lands known to be rich in untapped resources. The result is constant upward pressure on the price consumers must pay at the pump.
Not only is the cost paid by families every time they fill up at the local gas station, the economy takes a hit as well. James Hamilton, an economics professor at the University of California at San Diego, who studies energy prices, told CNBC that high gasoline prices reduce economic growth by about 0.5 percent for the year. In a $14 trillion economy, half a percent is a big deal, especially when growth is about 2 percent a year. And we haven't even mentioned Solyndra.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/12/obama-achieving-his-goal-higher-energy-costs/2024001#disqus_thread#ixzz1hH8qL6CO
-
$5 A Gallon For Gas? It Could Happen In 2012
January 2, 2012 11:59 PM
http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2012/01/02/analysts-say-we-could-see-5-a-gallon-for-gas-in-2012
$5 A Gallon?, Gas prices, Gas Prices Increasing, Iran, Iran Gas Prices, Pumpwatch BALTIMORE (WJZ) — Five dollars a gallon for gas? Analysts say it could happen this year.
Monique Griego has more on why gas prices could soon explode.
Just this weekend, the president signed new sanctions against the country of Iran. Now, Iran is firing back with a threat that could send gas prices higher than ever.
Prices at the pump already have drivers in pain.
“I can barely afford it now,” said one driver.
“Three dollars a gallon…I mean, five dollars gets you what, a gallon and a half?” said another.
But if Iran follows through on a threat to shut down one of the world’s most important oil routes, analysts say prices here could skyrocket by summer.
“If it gets to $5, that would be hurting the pockets very bad,” said Paul Rozanski, Severna Park.
Threats of five dollars a gallon has Rozanski reconsidering his ride.
“I just like the SUV because of the wintertime, but definitely in the summertime, get another car. Get a Prius or something,” he said.
In just the past week, gas prices have gone up nearly seven cents and there is no sign of them coming down any time soon.
According to AAA, the average for a gallon of regular is $3.25, compared to $3.07 this time last year.
“Iran’s saber-rattling. I think that could have an impact,” said Pete Horrigan.
Horrigan, who’s with the Mid-Atlantic Petroleum Distributors’ Association, says he won’t go as far as five dollars a gallon, but does expect prices to go up.
“We certainly have enough issues going on in the world and in this country that it could certainly be higher,” he said. “We’ve been fortunate in this country because in European countries, they’ve been paying a lot more than that for a long time.”
Many drivers are now hoping that good fortune holds out.
The U.S. penalties against Iran don’t take effect for six months and even then, the president can waive them for national security reasons.
The European Union is also considering new oil sanctions against Iran.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Latin oil supplies for U.S. start to dry up
The Washington Times ^ | 2 Jan 2012 | Patrice Hill
Posted on January 3, 2012 6:32:38 PM EST by mandaladon
The political and environmental debates swirling around the proposed $7 billion Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to Texas miss a crucial point, energy analysts say: The Canadian oil is needed to replace fast-dwindling production from two other major suppliers of oil Mexico and Venezuela.
The United States remains the largest consumer of oil in the world, requiring more than 8 million barrels a day of fuel imports to feed its appetite, with nearly half of that coming from oil-rich neighbors in Latin America as recently as 2005.
But oil production south of the border has fallen off dramatically, and Canadian crude in recent years quietly overtook imports from Mexico, Venezuela and even Saudi Arabia to become the most important outside source of oil for the U.S.
The trend toward replacing unstable sources of oil in Latin America and the Middle East with reliable and friendly sources in Canada was heartily welcomed in political circles until the pipeline controversy broke out last year. After trying to delay a decision until after the presidential election, the White House agreed in a compromise with congressional Republicans to determine within the next two months whether to proceed with the pipeline.
Because nearly all of Canada’s production will come from the Alberta tar sands served by the Keystone pipeline, energy analysts say, the pipeline extension will be needed to ensure that promising trend continues and that the U.S. does not go back to relying inordinately on unstable and hostile suppliers. “As traditional supplies of heavy crude from countries such as Mexico and Venezuela decline, Canadian oil sands become more important,” said Lucian Pugliaresi, an analyst with the Energy Policy Research Foundation Inc. Canada ships about 2.5 million barrels a day of crude to the U.S., more than twice as much as Mexico and Venezuela combined.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
Oil industry: 'Huge political consequences' if pipeline rejected
By Andrew Restuccia - 01/04/12 01:16 PM ET
A top oil industry official delivered a clear warning to President Obama Wednesday: approve the Keystone XL pipeline or face “huge political consequences.”
American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard urged Obama to quickly approve the pipeline, which would carry oil sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Gulf Coast.
A payroll tax cut package signed into law by Obama last month includes a GOP-backed provision requiring the president to make a final decision on the pipeline within 60 days.
“I think it would be a huge mistake on the part of the president of the United States to deny the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline,” Gerard said during the powerful oil industry trade association’s annual “State of American Energy” event Wednesday.
“Clearly, the Keystone XL pipeline is in the national interest. A determination to decide anything less than that I believe will have huge political consequences.”
Gerard’s comments Wednesday marked the latest attempt by proponents of the pipeline to pressure Obama to approve the project.
Republicans, who secured inclusion of the Keystone provision in the broader payroll tax cut extension package, are also turning up the political heat on Obama to greenlight the project.
House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans unveiled a countdown clock Wednesday that keeps track of the number of days since the president signed the bill requiring a speedy Keystone verdict.
The push by Republicans and the oil industry highlights the increasingly aggressive messaging war over the pipeline, which poses huge political risks – and potential rewards – for both the GOP and the White House.
Obama risks backlash from key union supporters if he rejects the project, but faces the ire of environmental groups if he approves it.
Republicans, meanwhile, stand to score a political victory if Obama OKs the pipeline. But their successful effort to force a decision could backfire if the president rejects the pipeline and pins blame on the GOP for rushing the review.
Obama administration and White House officials have said that the 60-day timeline could force them to reject the project because the State Department will not have enough time to conduct the necessary reviews. The administration announced earlier this year that it would delay a final decision on the pipeline until after the 2012 election in order to review alternative pipeline routes.
Environmental groups – who vehemently oppose the project, citing concerns about oil spills and greenhouse gas emissions – have said Obama has no choice but to reject the pipeline under the GOP-backed Keystone measure.
Obama is banging the war drums w Iran and is going to reject the pipeline in order to get us over 5 dollars a gallon.
-
While Increased Regulations Shut Down Coal Plants, Energy Costs Skyrocket
Capitol Confidential ^ | 1/5/2011 | Tom Gantert
As Michigan’s coal industry has been decimated in part by increased federal environmental regulations, some experts are concerned energy bills will skyrocket.
Consumers Energy announced it was canceling its plans for a clean coal plant near Bay City. Consumers Energy also announced it didn’t anticipate operating its seven coal-fired plants past January 2015.
At the same time it’s shutting down coal plants, Consumers Energy proposed hiking its electric-rates by $147 million this year. The Michigan Public Service Commission limited the increase to $118 million.
Michigan’s coal-burning power plants supplied 60 percent of the electricity used in the state, according to a Michigan Public Service Commission, Department of Labor and Economic Growth 2008 study.
And USA Today recently reported that electric bills have skyrocketed nationwide in the last five years.
Daniel Simmons, spokesman for the Washington, D.C. non-profit Institute for Energy Research (IER), said their research has Michigan losing significant electrical capacity as a result of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations. Simmons said if all the plants projected to close in Michigan were operating at full capacity, for one hour they'd produce 1.5 gigawatts of electricity.
“Closing these older coal-fired power plants will further increase the price of electricity as utilities build new power plants and pass on the costs to electricity consumers,” Simmons wrote in an e-mail. “This means higher electricity prices for Michiganders and the higher prices will make it even more difficult for businesses and manufacturers in Michigan.”
Meanwhile, experts predict large offshore wind turbines could be built in the Great Lakes as quickly as three years.
But offshore wind costs $243 per megawatt hour while coal cost range from $94 to $136 per megawatt hour, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Russ Harding, the environmental analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said experts are concerned natural gas prices will also increase. Harding said natural gas will be needed to replace the loss of coal production because wind and solar are not dependable forms of energy.
“It takes huge quantities of natural gas to replace coal electrical generation,” Harding said.
A Sierra Club official applauded Consumer Energy’s decision to shut down coal plants in a letter-to-the-editor.
Laurie Tata, a member of the Michigan Sierra Club Political Committee, wrote that “clean, renewable energy sources are our future.” The Sierra Club files a lawsuit against every coal plant in America seeking a permit.
Consumers Energy Spokesman Jeff Holyfield didn’t reply to an e-mail seeking comment. The Sierra Club’s Michigan Director Anne Woiwode didn’t respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
According to an EPA report, U.S. air quality has greatly improved by significant measures since 1970. According to the IER, "Since 1990, nationwide air quality has improved significantly for the six common air pollutants. These six pollutants are ground-level ozone, particle pollution (PM2.5 and PM10), lead, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur dioxide (SO2)."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
EPA’s Killer MACT
Beforeitsnews.com ^ | Jan 5, 2012 | Emerging Corruption
To understand how the Environmental Protection Agency operates, one must first understand that it lies all the time. Its “estimates” are bogus. Its claims of lives saved are bogus.
It thrives on scare-mongering to a public that is science-challenged, but the science remains and the EPA must be challenged to save the nation from the loss of the energy it needs to function. It must be challenged to unleash the huge economic benefits of energy resources—coal, oil, and natural gas—that can reverse our present economic decline.
The latest outrage is the MACT rule—an acronym for “maximum achievable control technology” intended to reduce mercury emissions and other trace gases. The rule is 1,117 pages long. Its purpose is to shut down coal-fired power plants that generate over fifty percent of all the electricity used daily in the United States of America.
(Excerpt) Read more at beforeitsnews.com ...
-
Print Close
Senators warn new EPA rules would raise gas prices
By&guy
Published January 13, 2012 | FoxNews.com
ADVERTISEMENT
Senators from both sides of the aisle are warning that looming EPA regulations on gasoline could impose billions of dollars in additional costs on the industry and end up adding up to 25 cents to every gallon of gas.
The senators, in a letter this week to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, urged the agency to back off the yet-to-be-released regulations. Though the EPA has not yet issued any proposal, they claimed the agency is planning to call for a new requirement to reduce the sulfur content in gasoline.
Citing the nearly $3.40-a-gallon average price of gas and the state of the economy, the senators said "now is not the time for new regulations that will raise the price of fuel even further."
They said it would be "expensive" for companies to meet the sulfur targets and cited a study that found it could add up to $17 billion in industry-wide, up-front expenses, in addition to another $13 billion in annual operating costs.
This could in turn add between 12 and 25 cents to an average gallon of gasoline "depending on the stringency of the proposed rule," they wrote.
"If the EPA does not proceed carefully with its regulations, the nationwide price of fuel could increase to the further detriment of consumers and businesses," the senators warned.
The lawmakers on the letter were: Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; David Vitter, R-La.; and Mark Begich, D-Alaska.
The EPA did not comment on the senators' complaints.
Asked Friday for a response to the concerns, the EPA said: "EPA is still in the process of developing the proposal."
An EPA official said publicly in November that the agency was developing the so-called "Tier 3" standards proposal during a House subcommittee hearing.
Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, told lawmakers that the proposal would help the country meet its "clean air goals."
"Motor vehicles and their fuel are an important source of compounds that form air pollution," she said.
Oge said reducing sulfur in gasoline would make emission control technology more effective, and "the end result would be cleaner air."
If the EPA formally issues the proposal, it would probably take more than a year for the agency to review public comments and finalize any plan.
A Senate Republican aide said the authority to tighten the sulfur standards comes from the Clean Air Act but noted that EPA has the discretion to either impose the standards or not.
The current sulfur standard is 30 parts per million in gasoline -- that's down from a prior standard of 300 parts per million. The new proposal could bring the standard down to 10 parts per million, according to the senators who wrote to Jackson
The aide said there was a "bigger benefit" when the standard dropped from 300 to 30 parts per million. But squeezing that down to 10 parts per million, the aide said, might not offer as much bang for the buck.
"They're extraordinarily expensive relative to the last round of sulfur reductions," the aide told FoxNews.com.
Print Close
URL
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/13/senators-warn-new-epa-rules-would-raise-
Great job Obama. BTW - please tell me how this helps the little guy you Obama turds?
-
Up Next… Obama’s New Energy Regulations Will Put 32 Coal Plants Out of Business
Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 10:39 PM
The Obama Administration killed the Keystone Pipeline project today.
Up next is the coal industry.
New EPA regulations will force 32 coal plants to close their doors putting hundreds of Americans out of work.
The latest move by the EPA will force new regulations on 26 states. The new rules will kill thousands of jobs, cost billions of dollars and increase electricity rates for every family.
New EPA rules will force Western coal-fired power plants to install haze-reducing pollution-control equipment at a cost of $1.6 billion a year. Pictured is the Dave Johnston Power Plant in Glenrock, Wyoming. (IBD)
The AP reported:
An Associated Press analysis has found that more than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to close because of the new, more stringent regulations. Another 36 plants are at risk of closing.
No lights will go dark. But the Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts — enough power for more than 11 million households — will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the rules take effect. One rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. Another sets first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from smokestacks.
The effect is greatest in the Midwest and in coal belt states such as Virginia and West Virginia, where dozens of units are likely to shut down.
Take Giles County, where American Electric Power’s Glen Lyn plant is located, and where 44 jobs are on the line.
County Administrator Chris McKlarney worries about the $600,000 tax-revenue hit his $40 million budget will take. But that’s just one concern involving a plant and workers whose community contribution is “hard to quantify.”
“They’ve done so much donation-wise for local causes … And they’re really good people working there,” he said. “They’re coaches in Little League sports, involved in the Parent-Teacher Organization — you lose those kind of people, it’s tough.”
And they’re good jobs — stable, well-paying positions with good benefits in places where such things can be hard to find.
The Obama Administration’s new energy regulations will shut down about 8% of all U.S. generating capacity or the equivalent of wiping out all power generation for Florida and Mississippi.
Marathon Pundit says the new regulations are cold-blooded.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/up-next-obamas-new-energy-regulations-will-put-32-coal-plants-out-of-business
Great damn job obamabots!!!! Killing off the nation one step at a time.
-
Its a tough time for hundreds of coal miners across southwest Virginia.
That's because they're getting pink slips from A & G Coal, which is owned by Southern Coal Company.
Mark Whooten is a spokesman for Southern Coal. He told News 5 who made the decision. "These layoffs are a decision by our corporate headquarters. They are market driven due to metallurgical coal market fluctuating violently at the present time."
The company wouldn't tell us how many jobs they have cut, but we do know its sizeable according to the manager of the local employment office, Gary Hale. "On Monday we saw approximately about 92 folks that visited the office."
Workers can turn to the employment office's Resource Center, where they can simultaneously file for their unemployment while beginning the search for a new job.
I spoke with several miners today.
None wanted to go on camera for fear of not being re-hired, when the company begins hiring again.
While the company calls them temporary layoffs, one miner spoke to us by phone and told us no one gave him any firm idea how long it might last. "The superintendent that gave the layoff, he said it could be 2 to 3, 4 weeks, maybe months, maybe longer."
All the company could tell us was that the workers would be hired back as son as the market for metallurgical coal bounces back.
Certainly not soon enough for hundreds of miners and their families.
EmailPrint
Copyright 2012 WCYB. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
Chevron's Genesis platform is shown in the Gulf of Mexico. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
A Louisiana economic development group says federal permitting for deep-water drilling continues to fall well below levels prior to the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, causing area businesses to lay off workers and relocate away from the Gulf Coast.
In a report released last week, the Greater New Orleans, Inc. economic alliance studied the rate of federal permitting for offshore activity since the moratorium on deep-water drilling was lifted in October 2010.
The group found that federal regulators have approved about three deep-water drilling permits per month since the moratorium ended, down from six permit approvals per month prior to the spill.
The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion in April 2010 killed 11 people and unleashed the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history. In its wake, the feds clamped down on offshore oil activity, instituting a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling.
The study found that permit approval took an average 109 days in 2011, compared to 61 days during the five years prior. The percentage of drilling plans approved fell to 34 percent in 2011, from an average 73 percent.
In the group’s survey of 99 companies, 49 percent said they had laid off workers in response to the moratorium, including engineers, office staff, riggers and captains. About 38 percent said they reduced employee hours or salaries. The average annual revenue for the responding companies fell from $136.5 million before the spill to $104.5 million today.
Of the respondents, 46 percent said they had moved all or part of their operations away from the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the moratorium.
However, the report noted that businesses negatively affected by the moratorium were more likely to respond to the survey, possibly causing skewed results.
Across Louisiana, the oil and gas extraction industry didn’t shed workers, remaining at about 8,500 employees before and after the moratorium, according to the report. The number of workers in supporting industries rose 6 percent, from 37,718 immediately before the oil spill to 39,840 after the moratorium was lifted.
The study attributed the employment growth to greater onshore oil drilling in the state’s shale gas areas.
“Several survey respondents mentioned hiring new workers for shale work,” the report noted. “The Haynesville Shale activity in North Louisiana may have mitigated some of the employment decreases resulting from decreased activity in the Gulf of Mexico.”
Greater New Orleans, Inc. is an economic development alliance that promotes the interests of businesses in New Orleans’ 10-parish area.
-
Average U.S. gas prices hover at record-high levels (but Obama still won't approve a pipeline)
LA Times ^ | 2/7/2012 | By Ronald D. White
Posted on February 7, 2012 6:42:07 AM EST by tobyhill
Last month turned out to be the most expensive January ever at U.S. gasoline pumps, boosted by growing economic strength.
January is typically a month of falling gasoline prices because fuel demand falters in the slower travel weeks that follow the year-end holidays.
In January, retail gasoline prices averaged $3.37 a gallon, according to the Oil Price Information Service, a private fuel information service. That compared with the previous record average for the month of $3.095 a gallon, set last year. In 2010, January gasoline prices averaged just $2.71 a gallon.
The new record meant more pain in Americans' budgets. A typical household, burning about 50 gallons of gasoline a month, paid about $168.50 for that fuel in January, or $33 more than in January 2010.
An economic pickup is behind some of the price appreciation, analysts said.
Increased demand for oil has helped increase crude prices, leaving the U.S. benchmark grade hovering around $100 a barrel in January, up $10 to $15 from year-earlier prices. At the same time, worldwide thirst for diesel, the fuel of industry, has caused U.S. refiners to export large amounts of diesel and therefore to produce less gasoline for U.S. motorists.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
No drilling.
No refineries.
No pipeline.
No approval of leases.
Devalue the dollar.
Bingo - ghetto POFSPOTUS gets his wish.
-
Thanks Barack… 3 West Virginia Coal Plants to Close
Gateway Pundit ^ | February 11,2012 | Jim Hoft
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/02/thanks-barack-3-west-virginia-coal-plants-to-close
Three West Virginia coal plants just announced they will close this year. Metro News reported:
Ohio based FirstEnergy Corporation announces it will close three coal fired power plants in West Virginia by this fall. The closings come directly from the impact of new federal EPA regulations.
The plants to close are Albright Power Station, Willow Island Power Station, and the Rivesville Power Station. The company says 105 employees will be directly impacted.
The three plants produce 660 megawatts and about 3-percent of FirstEnergy’s total generation. In recent years, the plants served as “peaking facilities” and generated power during times of peak demand for power.
The plants operated under subsidiary Monongahela Power. Mon Power recently finished a study of unscrubbed coal fired plants in the system to determine the potential impact of the most recent environmental regulations from EPA. Company officials determined the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) made it unfeasible to retrofit or continue operating the three plants.
“The high cost to implement MATS and other environmental rules is the reason these Mon Power plants are being retired,” said James R. Haney, regional president of Mon Power and president of West Virginia Operations for FirstEnergy.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
FirstEnergy closing 6 coal-fired power plants
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57366909/firstenergy-closing-6-coal-fired-power-plants
The new standards are designed to reduce emissions of mercury and other toxic pollution from coal- and oil-fired power plants. An Associated Press survey found that the changes were likely to bring the mothballing of dozens of units in the Midwest and in the coal belt — Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia.
The Obama administration was under court order to issue a new rule, after a court threw out an attempt by the Bush administration to exempt power plants from controls for toxic air pollution.
FirstEnergy said its decision would directly affect 529 employees. Some of them could end up transferring to other FirstEnergy facilities and work sites, while others could take advantage of a retirement benefit being offered to employees 55 years and older, the company said.
-
Obama Proposes Nearly $90 Billion in Tax Hikes on Energy Producers
ATR ^ | 2012-02-13 | Christopher Prandoni
Obama Energy Tax Proposals
The President’s FY 2013 budget contains billions in tax increase on energy production and consumption. These taxes will result in higher prices at the pump, increased utility bills, and fewer American jobs as companies flee the U.S. and companies cannot recover their investments. Below is a breakdown of energy taxes Obama put forth in his 2013-2022 budget:
[HTML Chart was over 300 words so I could not carry it over.]
ATR Recommendations
Congress should reject these new tax increases and move to rapidly increase access to domestic energy resources in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, part of the Rocky Mountains, the Atlantic and Pacific Outer Continental Shelves, and ANWR. Increased access would:
Create 1 million direct and indirect jobs by 2018 and over 1.4 million by 2030
Bring an additional 1.27 million barrels of oil equivalents per day online by 2015 and 10.4 million barrels per day by 2030
Raise over $800 billion in cumulative government revenue by 2030
Read more: http://www.atr.org/obama-proposes-nearly-billion-tax-hikes-a6729#ixzz1mNgDQtEi
(Excerpt) Read more at atr.org ...
-
Obama Winning His War on Coal
February 12, 2012
The Intelligencer / Wheeling News-Register
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/565679/Obama-Winning-His-War-on-Coal.html
Time may already have run out for Americans to defeat President Barack Obama in his war against the coal industry. Many utility companies already have run up the white flag.
Before millions of people even knew about the war on coal, decisions were made that will send their utility bills skyrocketing. Some of those choices are irreversible.
A few weeks ago it was revealed at least 32 coal-fired power plants in 12 states, including West Virginia and Ohio, would be closed so utility companies could comply with the Obama administration's air pollution regulations. On the list was the Kammer Plant near Moundsville.
Last week FirstEnergy announced it would close three West Virginia power plants later this year, along with six in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland, for the same reason.
Environmental Protection Agency officials are pressing utilities to replace 25 percent of their coal-fired generating capacity by 2014. That may not be possible, but it is an indication Obama's EPA is attempting to wreck the coal industry before anyone can stop it.
A few days ago, American Electric Power President and Chief Executive Officer Nick Akins said complying with EPA mandates will drive power costs up by at least 10-25 percent. AEP serves 5.3 million customers in 11 states.
On the heels of all that came a disturbing report from the North American Electric Reliability Corp., which works to ensure the nation's power grid is fed by enough generating plants to avoid interruptions in service. EPA regulations "are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years," the NAERC reported.
It may already be too late to save some coal-fired power plants. Clearly, time is short to prevent a crisis - and that is not too strong a word. Members of Congress, led by courageous West Virginians such as Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. and U.S. Rep. David McKinley, R-W.Va., have fought the good fight on the issue for many months. It's time for other lawmakers to stand up for their constituents and join in the fight.
-
Auto dealers warn fuel efficiency proposal will price out millions of buyers
Fox News ^ | 2/15/2012 | Judson Berger
Posted on February 15, 2012 8:45:21 PM EST by tobyhill
American auto dealers are pushing back on proposed fuel economy rules that, they claim, would price out millions of buyers from the new-car market, potentially jeopardizing the environmental benefits of the program and the resurgent auto industry itself.
Throughout the Obama administration's campaign to jack up fuel efficiency, officials claimed that for consumers, the upgrades would pay for themselves. Sure, buyers would pay more for a new vehicle off the lot, but they'd make up that cost in fuel savings in just a few years.
But the changes from two sets of fuel efficiency standards could add $3,000 to the price of a new car by 2025. And the National Automobile Dealers Association argues that if buyers can't qualify for a loan up front, the rest is fantasy. Cash-strapped buyers instead will go for gas-guzzling used cars or put off buying another car altogether, leaving the fuel-efficient marvels parked in the lots of auto dealers across the country.
"Where's the environmental savings ... if you can't get the older cars off of the road?" NADA spokesman Bailey Wood said.
The NADA estimates that by 2025, 6.8 million drivers will no longer qualify for a new-car loan if the proposed fuel efficiency standards go into effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
API Warns Of Upcoming 'tsunami' Of EPA Regulations For Refineries
Oil and Gas Online ^ | February 15, 2012
Posted on February 16, 2012 5:12:08 PM EST by Oldeconomybuyer
The American Petroleum Institute Director of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Howard Feldman warned of a "veritable tsunami" of new EPA air regulations for refineries that could "put some refineries out of business, diminish U.S. fuel manufacturing capacity, and increase our reliance on imported fuels" recently in a conference call with reporters:
"The president himself has called on federal agencies to take into account the impact of regulations on jobs and the economy," Feldman said. "EPA should follow through by ensuring that their regulatory proposals are necessary, practical, and fair."
Four U.S. refineries closed last year, according to Feldman. He said that significant new compliance costs on top of what existing regulations have imposed would make a difficult operating environment for refineries even more challenging.
"Given that the Clean Air Act was simply not designed to address greenhouse gases, if EPA is going to proceed, it is critical that the process be open and transparent," Feldman said.
Feldman said that step III of EPA's tailoring rule is not needed at this time and should be pulled back. He also called for EPA to accommodate gas-burning facilities and make allowances for refineries located on islands in its upcoming BoilerMACT rule.
He called on EPA not issue a Tier 3 vehicle emission proposal before there is "a full airing of the impacts, costs and benefits of further reductions of sulfur and vapor pressure in gasoline."
New Tier 3 requirements could boost the cost of making gasoline by up to 25 cents per gallon, close up to seven U.S. refineries, and actually increase carbon dioxide emissions, according to a study by Baker and O'Brien.
(Excerpt) Read more at oilandgasonline.com ...
-
Skip to comments.
Obama Likes High Gasoline Prices, But Won't Admit It
IBD Editorial ^ | February 16, 2012
Posted on February 16, 2012 8:55:33 PM EST by Kaslin
Energy Policy: If gasoline prices so far are any indication, the pain at the pump will be severe this year. But if you think President Obama cares, you're wrong. If anything, he's secretly cheering it on.
Already, average pump prices have topped $3.50 a gallon, leading some experts to think they could reach an all-time high of $5 by the summer.
So what's Obama's response? He treats it like a badge of honor, saying this week that "gas prices are on the rise again because as the economy strengthens, global demand for oil increases."
But what else can he say?
During his presidential campaign, Obama admitted he didn't have a problem with sky-high gasoline prices, he just "would have preferred a gradual adjustment."
His choice for energy secretary, Steven Chu, certainly doesn't mind them. Before joining the administration he said that "somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe."
And last year, Chu claimed "the price of gasoline over the long haul should be expected to go up."
At the same time, Obama has repeatedly feigned an inability to do anything about oil prices. Last April, he said: "I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
GenOn to shut 7 U.S. Mid-Atlantic coal power plants
Reuters ^ | 2/29/12 | Scott DiSavino
Posted on March 1, 2012 1:22:23 AM EST by Nachum
U.S. power generator GenOn Energy Inc on Wednesday said it would deactivate 3,140 megawatts of mostly coal-fired generating capacity in Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Jersey by 2015 due to more stringent federal environmental regulations. Over the past few years, energy companies have announced the shutdown or planned retirement of more than 30,000 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired generation due to proposed more stringent federal environmental regulations, weak power market conditions and record switching from coal to natural gas-fired generators as gas prices hold near 10-year lows.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
It's Happening: 5 Coal-Fired Power Plants Shutting Down
Townhall.com ^ | March 1, 2012 | Erika Johnson
Posted on March 1, 2012 9:58:13 PM EST by Kaslin
At the close of 2012, the EPA dictated a politically calculated--oops, I mean, for the sake of the public welfare, issued a--huge new stack of emissions regulations aiming to force coal-fired power plant operators to choose between installing pollution control equipment, switching to cleaner natural gas, or shutting down their plants. Which is good, because in 2008, President Obama did promise to bankrupt the coal industry... so, that's at least one promise he's kept, right?
Edison International (EIX) plans to shut down at least two aging coal-fired power plants in what could be a growing wave of retirements as low natural-gas and electricity prices and stricter pollution rules make many of these facilities unprofitable.
Edison will shut down its two Chicago coal-fired power plants -- one this year and one by 2014 -- rather than install pollution-control equipment to comply with state pollution limits, the company said. Edison said it also would likely shut down a third coal plant in Waukegan, Ill., and possibly others. ...
Companies are increasingly announcing plans to shut down aging coal plants as the cost of installing pollution-control equipment can exceed the value of the plant.
The Sierra Club estimates that these regulations are preventing a lot of premature deaths (I'm not sure how they think they know that), but Sen. Pat Toomey is not pleased:
But Sen. Pat Toomey, a Republican, said that as many as 315 people could lose their jobs.
"I am dismayed by the news that hundreds of Pennsylvanians will lose their jobs because of this impending wave of federal regulations. While I fully support sensible, existing power plant regulations to protect our air, the cumulative effect of these new rules, which are some of the costliest in the EPA's history, is overwhelming."
And while the Obama administration can certainly hope and dream that the ensuing energy vacuum will be filled by the bounteous sources of wind, solar, and other greenie endeavors, you can bet that more 'necessarily skyrocketing' electricity prices are what's for dinner.
-
Utilities announce closure of 10 aging power plants in Midwest, East
The Washington Post ^
Posted on March 3, 2012 2:31:59 AM EST by matt04
Two utility companies announced the closure of 10 aging U.S. power plants Wednesday, a move environmental groups hailed as a major victory even as critics warned it could raise the price of electricity.
Pedro Pizarro, president of Midwest Generation’s parent company, Edison Mission Group, issued a statement saying that in light of environmental rules being phased in over the next three years, “unfortunately, conditions in the wholesale power market simply do not give us a path for continuing to invest in further retrofits at these two facilities.”
...
GenOn Energy, meanwhile, cited the same reason as it announced it will deactivate eight power plants — seven fired by coal and one by natural gas — between June 2012 and May 2015.
In its announcement, GenOn outlined a schedule for closing 3,140 megawatts of generation capacity in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey “because forecasted returns on investments necessary to comply with environmental regulations are insufficient.”
...
The closing of the Fisk and Crawford plants, in operation since 1968 and 1958, respectively, marks a major win for anti-coal activists and their allies in elected office. Last week, Emanuel warned Midwest Generation that it had a week to broker a deal on curbing pollution from the plants or face the prospect of a city council ordinance that would force the company to shut them down within two years.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, called the closures “a giant leap in our work to move America beyond coal.”
“This agreement means a cleaner, healthier environment for the communities around these coal plants,” said NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous. “For too long, Fisk and Crawford have been literally choking some of Chicago’s most diverse neighborhoods, and some of its poorest.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-
Coal hurting Obama’s chances in swing states (They need jobs too, you know)
Hotair ^ | 03/07/2012 | Jazz Shaw
Posted on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 1:20:00 PM by SeekAndFind
Hot Air Memo to GOP:
Dear Republicans,
When you finish up letting the Democrats lead you around by the nose over things like which radio show host said what about who and where to buy the cheapest birth control pills, you might want to stop by some of the Rust Belt swing states and ask the folks there how things are going. In particular, check in with them in terms of how much it will be costing each voter this summer to keep the lights turned on and whether or not the workers at a number of coal fired power plants know where to go file for unemployment.
Best Regards,
Jazz
As gasoline prices continue to rise and keep the heat on President Obama’s energy policies, critics also are accusing the president of shifting support away from the coal industry, a major source of fuel and jobs in several battleground states, including Colorado, Michigan and Ohio.
Lawmakers on both sides of the partisan aisle say Obama administration environmental regulations aimed at cutting greenhouse gas emissionsare poised to hit jobs and consumers harder than the Keystone XL decision at the same time the president seems to have abandoned his stated support for the coal industry and clean-coal technology…
In late February, a bipartisan group of 219 members of Congress led by Reps. Ed Whitfield, Kentucky Republican, and John Barrow, Georgia Democrat, sent a letter to the Office of Management and Budget calling for a stop to the EPA’s greenhouse gas rule-making.
“Affordable, reliable electricity is critical to keeping and growing jobs in the United States, and such a standard will likely drive up energy prices and threaten domestic jobs,” they wrote. “Forcing a transition to commercially unproven technologies could send thousands of jobs overseas and raise electricity rates on families and seniors at a time when the nation can least afford it.”
We’re talking about an estimated 180,000 jobs between direct power plant employment and related support industry activity. We’re also looking at a hit to the power grid amounting to 12% of the electricity we generate. As those plants go offline, something is going to have to take up the slack, and even three new nuclear power plants won’t manage it. (Not to mention they won’t be on line for at least four years, if not longer.)
I know this may seem like dry, boring stuff to some of you busy people in Washington, DC. It’s just not one of those sexy, exciting topics that get you face time on the Sunday morning shows. But if you want to impress the people in some of the most critical states in the fall battle, try keeping them employed and stopping their utility bills from going through the roof. What a novel idea, eh?
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Enviros Whack 100 Coal-Fired Plants
Townhall.com ^ | March 11, 2012 | Marita Noon
Posted on March 11, 2012 11:44:29 AM EDT by Kaslin
While we are all squawking about high gasoline prices, there is an energy misdirection going on.
Sabre rattling by Iran has security specialists sitting on the edge of their seats and speculators seeing the resulting reduced-fuel future. Short of a quick military strike that would squelch Iran’s threats, there is little that America can do to stem the rise of the global commodity costs—though history tells us an announcement of increased drilling in the US would have a positive impact.
While we are all looking at gas prices, there is another dramatic energy price increase going on that is totally optional; one that is within the President’s power to completely reverse.
Coal-fueled electricity generation is the lowest cost. Yet, due to cost-increasing regulations, coal-fueled power plants are being shut down at an alarming rate—killing jobs, raising rates, and putting the reliability of the electrical grid at risk.
Environmental groups are cheering, while local governments are left to grapple with the lost tax revenue. On February 29, Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, penned a post celebrating the 100th closure of a coal-fueled power plant: Chicago’s Crawford plant. He also boasts that the group’s efforts have prevented 166 new coal-fueled power plants.
The closure of two units at the Salem Harbor Station in Massachusetts could halve the plant’s workforce. Salem Harbor Station is also the city’s biggest taxpayer. Mayor Kim Driscoll addressed the problem of the loss of the $4.75 million tax bill: “It's a big chunk of change when you're looking at we still have the same number of kids in school, we still have the same number of calls for police and fire, we have the same number of parks and resources that need to be maintained and kept up.”
In Chamois, Mo., jobs at the power plant are “the best thing going.” Mayor Jim Wright doesn’t want to see the Central Electric Power Plant shut down. He says: “Coal’s coal. If you are going to dig it up and ship it to China, you might as well burn it right here.”
Power plants throughout the country are being closed because of onerous regulations being mandated by the EPA. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation and power plant operators are pressing the Obama administration to give companies more time to comply with the rules to avoid shutting down too many power plants at one time. The regulations and the timeline to meet them make it uneconomic to upgrade the older units.
In response to EPA regulations proposed in October, Arizona Public Service Company announced in November that it would close three of the five units at the Four Corners Generating Station in Farmington, NM. Mark Schiavoni, senior vice president of Fossil Generation, said: “These rules would present a major economic challenge for continued operation.”
Across the highway is the San Juan Generating Station where the EPA’s plans to reduce emissions and increase visibility is threatening more closures. Not only are the EPA regulations aggressive, they are also invasive. The New Mexico Environment Department has a plan that will meet the EPA requirements of the Clean Air Act at a cost of $77 million. But the EPA wants a specific technology that will cost the ratepayers ten times more! The EPA’s plan will likely force the closure of the two older units at the San Juan Generating Station.
The Public Utility Company of New Mexico (PNM) is part owner of the San Juan plant. PNM and the State of New Mexico are appealing the EPA’s decision. They contend that the EPA did not properly consider the state plan proposing the alternative technology that would cost less but achieve similar improvements. They’ve asked the EPA to put a hold on the decision, and they’ve filed a stay that would delay implementation of the regulations while the court considers the appeals. PNM could have to spend millions on planning and design when the more-costly regulation could be ruled against in favor of the lower-cost option.
On March 2, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver denied the request to put the new regulations on hold while the appeal is being considered. The EPA could have granted the stay, but they are not interested in cooperation. The San Juan plant will likely go the way of the Four Corners plant across the highway. Unit closures at both plants will cut more than half of the current generation and hundreds of jobs. The rate payers will shoulder the costs. Environmental groups are pleased with the court’s decision.
The units that could be retired early, due to the regulations, have not yet been fully depreciated. I picture negotiations taking place between the key players—the Public Regulatory Commission, the environmentalists, and PNM—in a smoke-filled room (note: the ratepayers will not have a seat at the table). PNM could agree to bulldoze the units—which the environmentalist want—but it will cost. PNM will need to offset the cost of early retirement through rate increases.
Environmental groups say that cost claims are “hype”—though they admit that the retrofits required by the EPA will result in rate increases. They believe the consumers have been “getting a free ride because the cost of electricity from these plants is artificially low.” Additionally they believe that costs will be less than predicted. Not likely. How often do government projects come in under budget?
As the President did with the ozone rules in September, he could instruct EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to allow more time or to approve the state’s plan. He could delay the implementation of all of the aggressive regulations for a few years—at least until the economy improves. Many of the coal-fueled units in question are fifty-plus years old. They’ve already had scrubbers and other pollution reduction retrofits. They are running far cleaner than the original designs. Allowing them to operate for another few years—or for the rest of their useful lives—will not greatly impact long-term emission reductions, but it could provide significant benefits to the economy.
With the Administration’s permission, the environmentalists have a stranglehold on American energy policy. They are not apt to delay implementation. The EPA is pushing these regulations now because if President Obama does not get reelected, the Republican president will delay indefinitely or repeal the regulations altogether. This is their moment.
Unlike oil, electricity is not a global commodity. It is used close to the generation source. Electricity is as essential to a robust American economy as is oil/gasoline. Yet, while we are in the midst of the worst economic crisis of our lifetime, the Administration has made choices that will have an immediate impact on electricity prices. The one, two punch of high gas prices and increasing electricity costs are likely to knock out the struggling economy.
-
The Town EPA Says Must Close
"So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008
http://thedailyaccount.com/The-Town-EPA-Says-Must-Close.html
For once President Barack Obama has kept a campaign promise.
The town of Craig, CO with a population of 10,000 is dependent on the energy business that powers over 50 percent of Craig, Colorado’s economy, and makes the small town, which is home to one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the nation, a microcosm of the fight over green energy mandates versus traditional fuel sources. Craig Station is a key base load resource providing a total of 655 megawatts of relatively low-cost, reliable generation. Operated by Tri-State, approximately 300 people work at the 1,311-megawatt plant. The onslaught of federal and state regulations on coal energy is causing this town economic hardship. Many do not realize that policy has direct consequences on individual lives
The Local Craig industries are dependent on the coal plant, having stayed afloat through the recession because of the growing need for energy. Alternative energy companies aim to capitalize on that growing energy market, and renewable energy mandates from the state government help the green energy industry’s case by forcing companies to diversify the sources they produce their power from.
The coal plant in Craig complies with strict environmental regulations set by both the state and federal environmental protection agencies. Water vapor from the plant passes through a scrubbing system that removes 90 percent of chemicals and another filter washes out 99 percent of the ash. Nevertheless, despite a record of EPA compliance, the Craig power plant might be negatively impacted by renewable energy mandates that Colorado and nineteen other state legislatures have adopted — state law mandates that 30 percent of energy generated in the state comes from renewable sources by 2020. That is a problem for Craig, where coal is by far the greatest employer.
This mandate was established by left wing, tree-hugging bureaucrats without any thought to doable technology. We are well aware renewable energy (Wind & Solar) are a long way away from being reliable not to mention expensive. The EPA mandate makes no sense on many levels, but the bureaucrat’s ideology blinds them.
Let’s take a look at Craig Colorado
With a growing demand for energy, and the assumption the mandates will stay in force, leaves us with two very serious problems. First, since renewable energy is unreliable we could incur intermittent power disruptions or blackouts. Second, the cost is going to necessarily skyrocket. Both of these need not happen.
Thirty two coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down because of the new federal air pollution regulations and the renewable energy mandates. This will amount to 33 Gigawatts taken off line with an estimated job loss of 150,000 per year from 2012 to 2020.
As you saw from the video, the job loss has already started. It has started in Craig Colorado and will spread throughout the country. This is especially disturbing in light of the high unemployment in the United States. This is horrible policy. Unfortunately this administration is plowing forward, common sense be damned. This administration, which gave the nod to the EPA, doesn’t care about the people in Craig or you.
Other countries have pursued alternative energy policies with little success. Three European examples should make Americans think twice about renewable energy mandates: Denmark maintains the highest energy prices in Europe, where the price of electricity is “three times that of the U.S;” Germany isn’t far behind, as “renewable subsidies in Europe were lavish and now they are being rolled back because they are not sustainable;” and Spain represents the greatest model for concern, as IER found “that for every green job created, the economy lost 2.2 jobs as an opportunity cost.”
Frank and Kerrie Moe of Craig, Colorado are two small business owners fighting for economic survival because new federal and state regulations on energy production and electricity generation have threatened the livelihood of the entire community they live in.
The twist to this story is that Frank and Kerrie Moe do not work in the energy business. Do You?
-
Judge hits EPA for axing coal permit
By: Erica Martinson
March 23, 2012 05:41 PM EDT
A federal judge slammed an Obama administration gambit to revoke mountaintop mining permits Friday, saying the EPA invented authority where there was none.
“EPA resorts to magical thinking” to justify nullifying permits issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for Arch Coal Inc.’s Mingo Logan mine in West Virginia, wrote U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson in Washington, D.C.
Berman Jackson said the EPA’s effort to revoke permits already issued by the Army Corps lacked the backing of any statutory provision or regulation. “It posits a scenario involving the automatic self-destruction of a written permit issued by an entirely separate federal agency after years of study and consideration,” the opinion says.
“Poof! Not only is this nonrevocation revocation logistically complicated,” the ruling said, but it also robs industry of the only way they can possibly measure compliance with the Clean Water Act — a permit.
EPA ignored the effect that granting itself the right to revoke Army Corps permits could cause uncertainty and financial harm to industries dependent on capital credit for projects involving waterways.
“EPA brushed these objections away by characterizing them as hyperbole,” the judge wrote. “Even if the gloomy prophesies are somewhat overstated,” the concerns are real, she said.
Berman called the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act — which she separately lambasts for being poorly written — “illogical and impractical.”
Arch Coal spokeswoman Kim Link said the company is happy with the ruling. “We’re pleased the district court has ruled in our favor — confirming that our Spruce No. 1 permit remains valid,” Link said.
Environmental groups were dismayed with the ruling.
“We are deeply disappointed and concerned about the effect of today’s court ruling because mountaintop removal mining has already caused widespread and extreme destruction to the mountains, waters, and communities of Appalachia,” said a coalition of environmental groups in a statement Friday. “The Spruce No. 1 Mine permit, in particular, was one of the largest mountaintop removal permits ever proposed in Appalachia, and it is located in an area of West Virginia that has already been devastated by several large mountaintop removal mines.”
“We urge the EPA to appeal today’s ruling and continue to exercise its full authority under the Clean Water Act to protect waterways and communities,” the environmentalists said.
EPA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
This article first appeared on POLITICO Pro at 5:37 p.m. on March 23, 2012.
-
EPA to reduce new power plants' carbon pollution
Story
Discussion
Associated Press | Posted: Monday, March 26, 2012 9:41 pm | (0) Comments
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
The Obama administration will press ahead on Tuesday with the first-ever limits on heat-trapping pollution from new power plants, ignoring protests from Republicans who have said the regulation will raise electricity prices and kill off coal, a dominant U.S. energy source.
But the proposal, which was outlined to The Associated Press by administration officials, also will fall short of environmentalists' hopes because it goes easier than it could have on coal-fired power _ one of the largest sources of the gases blamed for global warming. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to pre-empt the official announcement.
Older coal-fired power plants have already been shutting down across the country, thanks to low natural gas prices, demand from China and weaker demand for electricity. But regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency on controlling pollution downwind and toxic emissions have helped push some into retirement, causing Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail to claim the agency will cause blackouts. Numerous studies and an AP survey of power plant operators have shown that is not the case.
The proposed rule will not apply to existing power plants or new ones built in the next year. It will also give future coal-fired power plants years to meet the standard, because it will eventually require that carbon pollution be captured and stored underground. That technology is not yet commercially available.
A new natural gas-fired power plant would meet the new standard without installing additional controls.
The regulation, which was due to be released last July, stemmed from a settlement with environmental groups and states. The government already controls global warming pollution at the largest industrial sources, has proposed standards for new vehicles and is working on regulations to reduce greenhouse gases at existing power plants and refineries.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, an advocacy group fighting coal-fired power, said in an interview that the regulation shows that President Barack Obama is moving to a cleaner energy future.
"It's a strong move," Brune said. "It means there will never be another coal plant built without new technology and it probably means even those won't be built because they can't compete."
But Republicans said the new rule could not come at a worse time, with concern about high gasoline prices and energy taking center stage in the presidential election.
"At a time when the Obama administration should be working to lower the price of gas at the pump, it is alarming that they have put forward more global warming regulations," said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate environment panel. "Republicans are committed to ensuring that the Obama-EPA is finally reined in."
___
Follow Dina Cappiello on Twitter (at)dinacappiello
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
-
EPA to kill new coal-fired plants through first-ever greenhouse-gas regulations
Hot Air ^ | MARCH 27, 2012 | ED MORRISSEY
If you thought gas prices will never stop rising, just wait until you see what happens to electricity after the Barack Obama’s EPA gets its way. The agency will deliver on Obama’s election promise to bankrupt any new coal-fired electrical production in its first-ever regulations on greenhouse-gas emissions, the Washington Post reports. The new regulatory regime will all but guarantee that new coal-fired plants won’t be built to replace others shutting down:
The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.
The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.
Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed on mercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.
“This standard effectively bans new coal plants,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “So I don’t see how that is an ‘all of the above’ energy policy.”
Well, it’s not, obviously. Nor has Obama ever honestly intended to apply an “all of the above” energy policy; he mouths the words, but his actions are hostile to hydrocarbon-based energy. The most honest discussion on energy policy from Obama came in the January 2008 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, in which he promised to bankrupt new coal-based facilities:
The problem is not technical, uh, and the problem is not mastery of the legislative intricacies of Washington. The problem is, uh, can you get the American people to say, “This is really important,” and force their representatives to do the right thing? That requires mobilizing a citizenry. That requires them understanding what is at stake. Uh, and climate change is a great example.
You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers.
They — you — you can already see what the arguments will be during the general election. People will say, “Ah, Obama and Al Gore, these folks, they’re going to destroy the economy, this is going to cost us eight trillion dollars,” or whatever their number is. Um, if you can’t persuade the American people that yes, there is going to be some increase in electricity rates on the front end, but that over the long term, because of combinations of more efficient energy usage, changing lightbulbs and more efficient appliance, but also technology improving how we can produce clean energy, the economy would benefit.
If we can’t make that argument persuasively enough, you — you, uh, can be Lyndon Johnson, you can be the master of Washington. You’re not going to get that done.
This leads us to the natural-gas option mentioned by the Post. The response might be, “Well, okay, Obama’s bankrupting the coal industry, but we can still use natural gas.” That’s only true if we can get the natural gas. The EPA has also begun blocking the use of hydraulic fracturing, better known as fracking, which allows for massive improvement in extraction and access to vast amounts of natural gas. Note well that Obama included natural gas among those sources to which his policies would be hostile, and so far he’s proving it.
Obama has no interest in an “all of the above” policy on energy. He wants to drive up energy costs in order to make his favored alternatives somewhat competitive, even though none of them can match the production scope of hydrocarbon sources that are found in abundance in the US. Obama has less interest in producing power than in exercising it, and Congress needs to put shackles on this EPA before working-class families have to start lighting candles rather than flipping on the light switch.
-
http://www.reuters.com/article/comments/idUSBRE82Q0W120120327
Absolute insanity by this communist tyrant in the WH.
Every deranged perverted thug who votes for him in November belongs in prison.
-
Obama kills coal - as promised, GOP is MIA on EPA overreach
The Washington Times ^ | March 29, 2012 | By Steve Milloy
Posted on March 29, 2012 7:36:34 PM EDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The Obama Environmental Protection Agency just condemned to death an entire U.S. industry - a legal and scientific horror story that congressional Republicans failed miserably to prevent.
The EPA’s newly proposed greenhouse gas emission standards for coal-fired power plants will be finalized by the Obama administration, win or lose, after the November election.
Though the proposed standards leave alone existing coal-fired power plants, they effectively prohibit the construction of new plants by establishing an impossible-to-meet emissions standard.
But don’t get the idea that the EPA threw the coal industry a bone by omitting existing coal-fired plants, as the agency has already issued two regulations - the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the Mercury Air Toxics Standard - that will prematurely retire about 20 percent of existing coal-fired plants over the next few years.
The supposed scientific grounds for the new EPA greenhouse gas emissions is global warming. But even if you believe that man-made emissions are changing climate for the worse, there are two realities that expose the EPA’s moves as purely political.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
-
Obama Plan Cuts Emissions for Future Coal Plants (To End the Coal Industry)
Guardian ^ | Tuesday 27 March 2012 15.55 EDT | Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent
Posted on March 29, 2012 11:02:11 PM EDT by Red Steel
New rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions will make it nearly impossible to build new coal power plants
The Obama administration effectively blocked the construction of any new coal-fired power plants on Tuesday, introducing rules to cut carbon dioxide emissions from the next generation of plants.
The proposed new standards would cut carbon dioxide emissions on new power plants in half and will, over time, help move America away from the carbon-heavy plants that currently produce nearly half of the country's electricity, Lisa Jackson, the head of the environmental protection agency, told a conference call with reporters.
"Right now there are no limits to the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to put into our skies – and the health and economic threats of a changing climate continue to grow," she said. "Today we're taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy."
Given the deep divide between Republicans and Democrats over energy policy, the new rules for coal are also bound to get caught up in election-year politics. Republicans in Congress, as well as Democrats for coal states, immediately accused President Barack Obama and the EPA of waging war on coal.
Coal-fired power plants are the largest single source of carbon dioxide, a main driver of climate change. But their share of America's energy mix has been shrinking, falling below 40% last year, according to the energy information agency.
The proposed new rules will make it nearly impossible to build new coal power plants,
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Rot in hell and choke on your own vomit every Obama voting communist turd.
-
Obama Delivers a Death Blow to the Coal Industry
rontPage Magazine ^ | March 30, 2012 | Rich Trzupek
The coal industry and coal-fired power has been dealt a series of body blows by the Obama administration over the last four years. Yesterday, the EPA delivered the coup de grace to coal, in the form of a new rule that – unless overturned by Congress or a future administration – will ensure that no new, modern coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States.
The EPA released Subpart TTTT of New Source Performance Standards yesterday, a proposed rule that limits carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants. No coal-fired power plant can meet the emission limit (1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of power produced), but natural gas-fired power plants can. This will lead to some significant changes in the power energy once the rule goes final, sometime next year.
It is now estimated that around 50,000 to 80,000 megawatts of coal fired power will be retired from the grid over the next few years. Coal fired power is base load power (that is, power that has to be available all of the time) and neither solar nor wind can provide base load power anywhere but in the President’s green fantasies. Biomass (wood, energy crops, etc.) can provide base load power, but there’s not nearly enough of the fuel to replace so much coal. More nuclear power could easily shoulder the load, but there’s no way that we can permit and build enough nuclear plants in the time available. That leaves natural gas as the only fuel that can possibly be used to replace all of that coal.
Right now, natural gas is looking pretty good. Thanks to shale gas, we have abundant supplies (over one hundred years of proven reserves, even in the worst-case demand scenario) and prices are incredibly low. New, highly efficient combined-cycle gas-fired power plants are actually competitive with coal-fired power at today’s prices.
Replacing all of that coal with natural gas should soothe global warming alarmists as well. (I say “should” because everyone knows that the environmental doom industry cannot and will not ever admit that it is satisfied with any level of reductions until we’re living in caves.) Natural gas generates much less carbon dioxide per unit of energy as compared to coal and, as noted above, natural gas-fired power plants can be much more efficient. The combination of these two effects means that carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, which have been declining for the last five years in any case, will drop even more precipitously in the future.
So, one might be tempted to ask: what’s the big deal? If natural gas is cheap and if burning natural gas might cause at least a few hysterical enviro-types to lower the volume of their incessant shrieking just a tad, it’s all good – right? Well, not quite.
Historically, natural gas prices have been very volatile and, despite the current glut, there is no reason to believe that supply will so greatly outstrip demand in the long run. The big energy players in natural gas, companies like Chesapeake, Cabot and Chevron, are working hard to create new markets, increase demand and thus get prices back up. A major South African chemical company recently announced plans to build a plant here that will produce gasoline from natural gas feedstock. Several players in the energy market are in the initial stages of planning Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals with exports to Europe and Asia in mind. There are plans in the works to create more natural gas infrastructure so that the nation’s truck fleet will convert over from diesel to natural gas.
Perhaps most importantly, using natural gas to generate thousands of megawatts of power will consume huge quantities of the fuel, thus necessarily causing prices to rise as more new power plants come on line. It’s no surprise that the two big manufacturers of natural gas fired-turbines – GE and Siemens – have been flooding the airwaves with commercials extolling the virtues of their wares. Both companies stand to make a whole lot of money in the next few years thanks to the Obama administration’s all-out war on coal.
In contrast to the volatility of natural gas prices, coal prices have always been pretty steady. Thus the coal fleet (along with the nuclear fleet) has helped to dampen out any fluctuations in natural gas that affects that relatively small portion of energy production in the United States. As we shift away from coal and put more of the energy burden on natural gas, electricity prices are likely to fluctuate more than they ever have and are likely to increase substantially over the long term as well.
It’s a shame that we’re knowingly abandoning such a cheap, reliable and plentiful resource like coal in a foolish effort to fulfill a ridiculous crusade led by eco-puritans. It’s maddening that such a decision was made not by Congress, nor by the voters, but by a few faceless bureaucrats hiding behind global-warming pseudo-science that has become the twenty-first century’s version of alchemy. But that’s where we are and, unless something changes this November, that’s where we’re likely to be for quite a while.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com
URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2012/03/30/obama-delivers-a-death-blow-to-coal-industry/
-
PATTERSON: Obama kills coal - as promised
Higher electricity prices will most affect those who can least afford them
By Matt Patterson
-
The Washington Times
Thursday, March 29, 2012
"If someone wants to build a new coal-fired power plant they can, but it will bankrupt them because they will be charged a huge sum for all the greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
-Candidate Barack Obama, 2008.
Well, we can't say we weren't warned. This week, the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency released a set of proposed rules designed to target greenhouse gas emissions. If enacted, these rules would virtually destroy the coal industry - just as President Obama once promised he would do.
Under the proposed rules, new power plants will be required to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity; coal plants average 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt. As Jordan Weissmann writes for theAtlantic, "Natural gas plants already meet this requirement. But if a utility wants to burn coal for electricity, it will need to install carbon capture technology - and that's really expensive."
Carbon capture and storage technology allows carbon-dioxide emissions to be stored in the ground instead of being released into the atmosphere. But the technology is, for many coal-energy producers, prohibitively pricey. Even assuming new coal plants are actually built under this regulatory regime, to whom do you think those new expenses will be passed on to? That's right - energy consumers.
Rich people will be able to pay those extra costs, though they may gripe about it. But middle-class households will see a rise in their energy bills that will put them in even greater financial distress than they already are under in this abysmal "recovery." Poor and working-class people will be especially hurt, of course, as is almost always the case when wealthy pencil-pushers hatch a brilliant plan to "save the planet." Among the pencil-pushers is EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, who crowed: "Today we're taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy."
Will coal-power producers try to forge ahead with new facilities under these proposed regulations? Doubtful. Remember, this is an industry already groaning under the weight of a slew of new regulations imposed by the Obama EPA, including emission limits on mercury and sulfur dioxide, "which would require utilities to eventually upgrade old plants or build entirely new ones," Mr. Weissmann notes.
True, the EPA is taking pains to stress that the new regulations would apply only to new plants. Gina McCarthy, EPA assistant administrator for air and radiation, assured lawmakers at a hearing before the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the agency has "no plans" to curb greenhouse gas emissions for existing plants. But no one believes that, not Republicans who grilled EPA officials at Wednesday's hearing, nor environmental groups who have long sought the death of King Coal.
David Doniger, climate program policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council notes that the Clean Air Act likely will make it inevitable that the EPA will train its anti-carbon guns on existing coal-fired power plants. Just so we know where the council stands, Mr. Doniger promises, "We look forward to reaching an agreement with EPA on a schedule for completing the standard for new sources and developing standards for existing sources." Doubtless, Mr. Obama's EPA won't need much of a nudge from Mr. Doniger's group.
Unlike his promises to close the terrorist detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, keep lobbyists out of the White House, and oppose an individual mandate for health insurance, at least we know that Mr. Obama was true to his word when he promised to bankrupt an entire industry that employs tens of thousands of Americans.
Well done.
Matt Patterson is the Warren T. Brookes Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and senior editor at the Capital Research Center.
© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Sippin' on Coal and Rum
Townhall.com ^ | April 2, 2012 | Katie Kieffer
Posted on April 2, 2012 7:09:47 AM EDT by Kaslin
Me: “I'll take a ‘Coal and Rum.’”
Bartender: “What's that?”
Me: “I'm protesting the EPA.”
Bartender: “Got it. Awesome. Your drink is on the house.”
Coal is my lifestyle. Coal allows me to turn darkness into light at the flip of a switch. Coal allows me to brew a cup of coffee, toast a bagel and pour a class of refrigerated orange juice in minutes. Coal lets me text friends and find directions from my fully-charged iPhone. Coal grants me the ability to use machines to wash and dry my week’s laundry pile while I run on my treadmill. Coal allows me to heat my Minneapolis bedroom to a balmy 72 degrees while snow and freezing winds pelt the roof. Basically, coal means that Americans like you and me can live like kings and queens on a pauper’s budget.
I think every American—progressive, moderate or conservative—should be concerned that the President of the United States is putting coal out of business and raising the cost of ordinary living. His EPA just released new carbon dioxide emission limits that will effectively put new coal-fired electric plants out of business, thereby raising the cost of energy at a time when record numbers of Americans are jobless and homeless.
To ice the cake, President Obama is acting unconstitutionally and ignoring science. The Constitution does not allow the President to create laws via Cabinet-level agencies like the EPA. And, there is no conclusive scientific evidence proving that producing clean coal radically endangers humans or the earth.
A new study shows that young people could care less about going “green.” Sure, we care about the earth and we dislike pollution; no one wants to live in smog. But don’t ask us to pay to combat climate change while we struggle to pay our bills and compete with hundreds of our qualified peers for the same paltry job openings.
This month, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology published a 40-year study that observed the generational shifts in American attitudes toward environmentalism from baby boomers to Gen Xers to Millenials. Researchers found that the “Steepest [trend] of all was a steady decline in concern about the environment, and taking personal action to save it,” reports The Associated Press.
Key findings from the study:
• Millenials dislike the label “environmentalist.”
• The majority (85-90 percent) of young people are "…not interested in being seriously inconvenienced or paying a cost to…" protect the environment.
• Only 21 percent of Millenials consider it their responsibility to “clean” the earth.
Even though young people like myself have been nagged to “go green” by commercials, celebrities, college professors and employers, we are smart enough to prioritize and read through the conspiracy theories. We are tech-savvy individuals. We want to plug in our iPads and send emails off, not write snail mail letters by candlelight. We want to advance, not regress. Is this so much to ask?
If President Obama thinks he can fool young people to vote for him by putting coal out of business, he should think again. We know that the dangers of human-induced climate change are still controversial theories. Sure, the earth is warming and cooling but many scientists say this is natural and will happen whether or not humans use coal-powered lights, TVs, smartphones and washing machines. Americans in general, but particularly young professionals, are worried about their own premature extinction—not climate change.
Good science does not emerge from “group-think” exercises. The Heartland Institute points out that it would not matter if 99 percent of scientists confidently held the theory that humans significantly contribute to climate change—one scientist, doing a single experiment, could disprove this theory. And as Rush Limbaugh has said: “There’s nothing democratic about science. The earth does not revolve around the sun because a consensus of human beings says so.”
When Benjamin Franklin performed experiments to verify lighting’s electricity by flying a kite, he was outside interacting with nature—not huddled in a group pushing for political consensus. Franklin invented the lightning rod whereas climate scientists are inventing science to support socialist public policies like the EPA’s coal regulations.
There have been so many scandals surrounding climate change “scientists” that it is difficult to take their research seriously. Today’s climate scientists seem to care less about conducting Franklinesque nature experiments and more about manipulating spreadsheet data to help politicians scare voters into letting the government control energy production. For example:
• Climategate: On November 19, 2009, a whistleblower releases thousands of documents and emails on the server for the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom. The leaked materials reveal that the same “scientists” aggressively pushing the man-made climate change scare were cutting back-door deals to protect their funding from the global community, exaggerating the number of scientists with PhDs who signed off on their data, hiding data and trying to blackmail scientists who wouldn’t go along.
• Polarbeargate: On July 18, 2009, the biologist who succeeded in getting Polar Bears on the endangered species list and a forefather of the global warming movement, Charles Monnett, is investigated by the Department of the Interior’s Office of Inspector General for scientific misconduct related to both his report connecting polar bear deaths to climate change and his awarding of federal contracts for polar bear research.
Although Monnett was allowed to return to work, he was placed in a different department where he no longer oversees $50-million of federal research grants—and the probe over Monnett’s past work was last reported by NPR-online to be ongoing.
• EPA-gate: On September 28, 2011, an internal government watchdog reveals that: “The Obama administration cut corners…” because the EPA issued “controversial and expensive regulations to control greenhouse gases for the first time” despite the fact that the EPA did not conduct sufficient scientific studies to determine whether greenhouse gas emissions “pose dangers to human health and welfare,” reported the Associated Press.
• Climategate 2.0: On November 22, 2011, an anonymous whistleblower discloses 5,000 fresh emails revealing the scientific community’s plot to sell man-made global warming fears to the public.
“Several of the new e-mails show that the scientists involved in doctoring the IPCC [UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] reports are very aware that the energy-rationing policies that their junk science is meant to support would cost trillions of dollars,” Competitive Enterprise Institute director Myron Bell told Forbes.
• Fakegate: On February 20, 2012, activist-scientist Peter Gleick, President of the Pacific Institute, admits that he lied to Chicago think tank, Heartland Institute. He posed as one of Heartland’s board members via email in order to access confidential documents. Then, he tampered with the documents and released doctored versions to the public in an attempt to cast doubt on Heartland’s position that the dangers of man-made global warming are overblown and theoretical.
I’m will not give up my high-tech lifestyle so that synthetic climate scientists can keep their global funding. And, I’m unwilling to live through blackouts and pay three times as much to toast my morning bagel so that an unconstitutional agency like the EPA can kill new, coal-fired electric plants.
Heya, bartender! Thanks for that Coal and Rum! I’ll have another.
-
Mine union boss: Coal industry could suffer same fate as bin Laden
The Hill ^ | April 4, 2012 | Andrew Restuccia
Posted on April 5, 2012 4:16:52 AM EDT by Timber Rattler
The coal industry will suffer the same fate as Osama bin Laden under new climate regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, the head of the United Mine Workers of America said this week.
“The Navy SEALs shot Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Cecil Roberts, president of the powerful union, said during an interview Tuesday on the West Virginia radio show MetroNews Talkline.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
-
Sky-high Electric Bills Courtesy of Obama EPA’s War on Coal
New American ^ | 5-4-12 | William F. Jasper
Posted on Monday, May 07, 2012 9:11:09 AM by Mikey_1962
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Candidate Barack Obama,
San Francisco Chronicle interview,
January 17, 2008
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” — Candidate Barack Obama,
Same interview as above
“We’re going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gasses. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power … but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we’re going to have to change our light bulbs, we’re going to have to shut the lights off in our houses.” — Candidate Barack Obama,
Iowa PBS interview, November 9, 2007
Electricity rates are indeed set to skyrocket, as Barack Obama predicted back in 2008, while he was still a freshman Senator and ambitiously aspiring to White House occupancy. The Obama administration’s new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired electrical power generation, if allowed to go into effect, will mean that even a lot of us who can’t afford it will “have to pay more per unit of electricity.” But the pain will be much more severe than merely having to change our light bulbs.
A Grim Scenario
If Congress doesn’t act to rein in the EPA’s all-out war on coal, we will all be paying much higher electrical rates — and higher prices for just about everything else, since virtually everything we eat, drink, wear, and use requires energy for production and transportation. Thousands of coal-mining jobs are on the chopping block, of course, but hundreds of thousands of other jobs spread across all sectors of our economy are on the same chopping block. For businesses that are struggling to remain viable in this ongoing recession, energy costs are critical and even a slight uptick in rates can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.
The billions of dollars in compliance costs that the Environmental Protection Agency is mandating for coal-fired electrical plants will be that straw for many businesses, as those costs get passed on. Dozens of power plants, however, are simply shutting down; the costs of compliance are simply too high. So, another pain we may soon experience is an increase in rolling brownouts and blackouts.
In July 2011, Georgia Power Company announced that it would be closing three coal-fired power plants over the next two years, due to the EPA’s new regulations.
“Georgia gets more than half its energy from coal, and Georgia Power gets 60 percent or more from coal,” noted Benita Dodd, vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. “So this is going to become a very expensive venture for Georgia ratepayers.” Georgia electricity customers will be socked by a formidable one-two economic punch, Dodd explained.
“The closures are going to hurt ratepayers now, but the regulations are going to hurt when they’re implemented,” Dodd said. “These regulations are indefensible, they’re unnecessary, and they’re incredibly expensive.”
The same grim scenario is rolling out across much of the nation. “The impact of these EPA rules will be felt most severely in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which together account for more than a fourth of all U.S. manufacturing,” writes Paul Driessen, in his 2001 report, The EPA’s Unrelenting Power Grab, published by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. “These states,” notes Driessen “rely on coal to generate 65-92% of their electricity, which keeps costs down for hundreds of companies that remain competitive nationally and internationally primarily because they can utilize energy-intensive industrial boilers, furnaces and electrical machinery, to boost their productivity per worker-hour: 6.9 to 9.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in those six states, versus 11 to 17 cents per kWh in states that generate 1-30% of their electricity with coal.”
In December 2011, the Associated Press reported that “32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations.” The AP also published a list of the plants that would be shuttered. However, that list quickly became obsolete; as utilities crunched the numbers and surveyed the costs, more began throwing in the towel.
Politics in Play
Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, condemned EPA’s attack on coal in unsparing terms. “It’s hard to imagine that the Obama EPA is announcing a massive energy tax today on Americans at a time when they are already reeling from skyrocketing gas prices,” Inhofe stated. “So much for President Obama’s claims to be for an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach — these regulations are designed specifically to kill coal in American electricity generation, which will significantly raise energy prices on American families. This plan is the most devastating installment of the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy: it achieves their cap-and-trade agenda through regulation instead of legislation.”
The regulations to which Inhofe, Driessen, Dodd, and other critics are referring is actually a series of three EPA policy edicts unleashed by the Obama administration that include a huge array of complex mandates. They are:
• The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which requires 27 states to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in Eastern states in an effort supposedly to improve ozone and fine particulate air quality in other downwind states. Under CSAPR, EPA set new limits on SO2 and NOx emissions for each state beginning in 2012. The limits tighten in some states in 2014.
• Utility MACT, which requires stringent new standards for removing mercury and other hazardous wastes.
• Policies to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCR) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and to regulate cooling water intake under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.
• Carbon dioxide regulations requiring new coal plants to produce no more than 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity.
The first three policies outlined above are aimed at killing off existing coal-fired plants; the fourth policy, on CO2, aims at killing new coal-fired plants before they can be born.
A study released in September 2011 by National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) paints a very harrowing picture of the impact of the EPA rules on existing coal plants. The study concluded:
Over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 183,000 jobs per year are predicted to be lost on net.... The cumulative effects mean that over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 1.65 million job-years of employment would be lost. U.S. GDP would be reduced by $29 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $190 billion (2010$). U.S. disposable personal income would be reduced by $34 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $222 billion (2010$).
And those are conservative estimates; the NERA economists note that they do not consider several other variables that would likely drive the total costs and losses higher.
Those figures also do not include the costs that the EPA’s CO2 rules will impose on future energy production.
This being an election year, and with energy prices being a major campaign issue, it is not surprising that the Obama administration is trying to portray the onerous new regulations as moderate, sensible, and flexible. “Today we’re taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in her March 27 statement announcing the CO2 mandates. “We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids.”
Jackson concluded her statement with the incredible assertion that “EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard.”
Environmental extremists have greeted all of the EPA’s attacks on coal, and especially its CO2 regulations, with jubilation because they believe (the administration’s current rhetoric notwithstanding) these will prove to be lethal blows to coal, the ultimate villain d’jour of those who identify themselves as “greens.” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune is overjoyed that the EPA’s CO2 rule would make it “nearly impossible to build a new coal plant,” apparently agreeing (for once) with the American Public Power Association, which claims the new mandate will “kill coal going forward.”
“EPA’s action will effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants,” says Dr. Bonner Cohen, senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He explains why that is:
Under the rule, no new power plant will be allowed to emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. On average, U.S. coal plants emit 1,768 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity. The rule requires future plants to use as yet non-existent carbon capture and control technologies to cut their emissions to the new standard. With no technology available to bring down CO2 emissions to the new standard, EPA, in the name of combating climate change, is effectively telling the coal industry, which produces 55 percent of our nation’s electricity, that its days are numbered.
The “All-of-the-Above” Lie
Striking his best moderate-sensible-flexible pose, President Obama stated, in his February 23, 2012 Miami speech on energy, that “we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more.”
Whether the President’s omission of coal in that equation was intentional or a Freudian slip, it is clear that his administration does indeed have coal in the crosshairs — and it is firing one shot after another into its intended victim. That is a terrible crime because it is killing our economy as well as killing some of our best prospects for moving toward energy independence, prosperity, and fuller employment.
In our March 19, 2012 cover story, “Coal: The Rock That Burns,” Ed Hiserodt provides a detailed report on the enormous current and potential benefits that our massive coal deposits offer, noting that the United States “is considered by many geologists as the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal.” He writes:
The Energy Information Agency reports the United States has a Demonstrated Reserve Base of 496 billion short tons of coal, of which 272 billion tons are considered recoverable with current technology. With U.S. usage at 1.1 billion tons per year, we have about 250 years’ supply at the present rate of consumption. But as with other energy resources — though we use millions of tons of coal — reserves rise each year as new coal seams are located.
Coal, Hiserodt points out, “provides life-saving and life-enhancing energy for America.” It is, he notes, “a resource that is proven and available. We should be very thankful for this energy miracle that provides us comfort, improves our health, and gives us more years to enjoy the blessings of life.”
However, the Obama administration seems to be packed with activists who are pathologically obsessed with obstructing our ability to utilize this “miracle rock.” At the same time, the EPA radicals are also throwing roadblocks in the way of our access to, and use of, oil, natural gas, uranium, and every other viable form of energy.
-
Coal industry warns proposed EPA rule could force fourth of plants to close
FoxNews.com ^ | May 10, 2012 | unattributed
Posted on May 11, 2012 12:26:51 AM EDT by Hunton Peck
In obscure, blue-collar towns across Appalachia -- places that most Americans have never seen -- generations of coal miners have toiled away at back-breaking labor to power American homes and industry. Now, as many as 200,000 of them who dig, process, transport and burn America's most abundant fuel are threatened by EPA's latest coal rule.
It imposes a standard for emissions that is all but impossible for many plants to meet. It requires coal-fired plants to release no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour.
The only means for many older plants to attain that standard is to install what is known as carbon capture and storage technology. But that's expensive and not commercially available.
"At the end of the day, we just couldn't justify it based upon what that cost would be," says Mark Durbin of First Energy, which owns the Willow Island Power Station in Albright, W.Va., "It would be astronomical to try and retrofit some of older units that really are not as efficient as they should be."
Environmentalists are praising the new rule as a vital defense against climate change.
"We know what fossil fuel damages do to our public health, the health of our kids, our families," said Brent Blackwelder at a recent gathering of Friends of the Earth. "We know the damage it does to crops and to buildings. And now the big damage all around the world is climate disruption."
But coal industry representatives believe they've made great strides in reducing emissions through the years -- now capturing over 99 percent of particulate emissions released during the combustion process. The EPA's proposed rule, they say, sets the bar too high and may force the closure of 20 to 25 percent of coal-fired plants across the United States.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
200,000 Blue Collar Coal Miners Who Power America Threatened by Obama EPA
Fox News ^ | 5/11/2012 | Fox News
In obscure, blue-collar towns across Appalachia -- places that most Americans have never seen -- generations of coal miners have toiled away at back-breaking labor to power American homes and industry. Now, as many as 200,000 of them who dig, process, transport and burn America's most abundant fuel are threatened by EPA's latest coal rule.
It imposes a standard for emissions that is all but impossible for many plants to meet. It requires coal-fired plants to release no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour.
The only means for many older plants to attain that standard is to install what is known as carbon capture and storage technology. But that's expensive and not commercially available.
"At the end of the day, we just couldn't justify it based upon what that cost would be," says Mark Durbin of First Energy, which owns the Willow Island Power Station in Albright, W.Va., "It would be astronomical to try and retrofit some of older units that really are not as efficient as they should be." Environmentalists are praising the new rule as a vital defense against climate change.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
-
-
Coal Miners Protest Biden In Ohio
Workers and management from a local mine join Tea Party activists to razz the Veep as the energy battles intensify.posted May 17, 2012 10:41am EDT
Zeke Miller BuzzFeed Staff
..
Share
Email
10
Stumble
..
.
MARTINS FERRY, Ohio — Coal miners upset with the Obama administration’s policies on energy protested Vice President Joe Biden’s campaign rally here.
More than 100 coal miners and tea party activists stood on a hill overlooking Biden’s speech holding signs like "Biden said 'no more coal in America'" and “Stop the war on coal, fire Obama.”
Mitchell Metzler a miner and Iraq war veteran, said he came to the protest after finishing his midnight shift at the mine.
“I spent a year in Iraq serving my country, and now they want to take away my job,” he said.
Kevin Hughes, the superintendent at the American Energy Corporation Century Mine in Beallsville, Ohio, which organized the rally of its workers, said the reason they were protesting is simple: President Barack Obama’s regulatory agenda is killing jobs.
“We want to save our jobs. We want to save this valley,” he said.
Ed Good, an electrician at a local coal-fired power plant and a member of the Obama campaign’s “Truth Team” dismissed the notion that there is a “war on coal,” noting that coal mining jobs reached a 14-year high last year, but acknowledging that there are still problems with the Environmental Protection Agency.
Good mentioned that when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts he too took a hard line on coal.
“Back then the governor was saying I’m going to shut down any plant that kills people — he was referring to a coal plant, a utility plant,” he said.
-
EPA holds 12-hour hearings with environmentalists to slow coal production
The Daily Caller ^ | 5/24/12 | Josh Peterson
Posted on May 24, 2012 11:58:33 PM EDT by Nachum
The Environmental Protection Agency held 12 hours of stacked hearings in Washington, D.C. and Chicago on Thursday in favor of a regulation that analysts have concluded would kill the building of new conventional coal plants in the U.S.
Among the participants scheduled to testify in consecutive five minute blocks throughout the day were multiple representatives from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and environmental activists from the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Greenpeace.
The proposed rule, reported by The Washington Post in March, limits the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by power plants to no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour. While the EPA is keeping public comments on the regulation open until June 25, the dice have already been cast by the Obama administration against conventional coal plants, fulfilling a January 2008 campaign promise by the president.
“The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour,” the Post reported.
Natural gas — a competitor to coal — and the Sierra Club have had historically close financial ties. Natural gas companies paid the Sierra Club $26 million over four years to battle the coal industry. Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune dismissed the connection in a February blog post.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
Obama’s America: EPA Officials Visit Man For Sending Email
The POH Diaries Blog ^ | May 24, 2012 | Blogger TWB
Posted on May 25, 2012 6:03:44 AM EDT by w4women
About a month ago, EPA regional official Al Armendariz made news when a YouTube video of him describing the way the agency handles oil and gas companies surfaced. In it, Armendariz said an analogy he liked to use about enforcement was how the Romans used crucifixion to keep smaller towns and villages under their thumb. Since then, Armendariz has resigned his post at the EPA. Case closed, right? Wrong.
A local North Carolina man named Larry Keller didn’t particularly like the analogy that Al Armendariz used, so, along with thousands of others assumably, he set about to contact Mr. Armendariz to discuss his views on the oil and gas industries. One of our basic rights and privileges in a free society is to be able to petition our government for a redress of grievances without fear of repercussion from said government simply for voicing our grievance.
Keller proceeded to try and contact Mr. Armendariz by Googling him. His domain was a subset of Southern Methodist University, he was directed to contact a Dr. David Gray who is the Director of External Affairs for the EPA. Keller wrote a simple, one sentence email to Dr. Gray which said simply, “Hello Mr. Gray-Do you have Mr. Armendariz’s contact information so we can say hello?”
On May 2nd, just a little over a week after the Armendariz crucify comments had flared up, two special agents from the EPA and a local police officer showed up at Mr. Keller’s home. Here is the story in his own words:
On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 at about 1:45PM two Special Agents from the EPA and an armed police officer who stood 6’6” tall visited our house in Asheville, NC. Their visit was a total surprise as we had not received any communications requesting an appointment. The agents presented very official looking badges and asked if we could sit and chat awhile. We moved to the back porch and took our seats with the exception of the armed officer who stood by the door to the house the entire time.
Keller was asked by the agents if he ran a business out of his home, and if so, what kind of business. Keller runs a consulting business from his home. Then he was asked if he had ever sent an email to anyone at the EPA. Keller, not remembering the email initially said no, then remembered his email to Dr. Gray trying to get the contact information for Al Armendariz. This is what happened next:
At this point Agent Woods reach into a file and from it he pulled out a copy of my email to Dr. Gray. He handed it to me and I asked what was there about the content that justified their driving across the state of NC to visit me with no prior warning. The other agent then stated that my choice of words in the email could be interpreted in many ways. At that point I asked them to be specific as they were wasting my time. I stated that I pay for agents’ salaries and that of the police officer and they have bigger fish to fry. Special Agent Woods then asked if I had ever been arrested – the answer was a swift no. I then asked for a copy of the email they presented and they said that was impossible as the investigation was not yet complete.
Keller asked the agents for business cards that they had previously promised him and they were miraculously out of business cards. The two agents, who had driven four hours from Raleigh, North Carolina for this encounter with Mr. Keller, left via the back staircase as quickly as they had appeared without supplying Larry Keller with their contact information. He also states that the agents had parked blocking his driveway and that the local police officer had parked in his neighbor’s driveway.
Larry Keller was interviewed by Pete Kaliner, a local conservative radio host about the incident. You can listen to the interview here. I heard today on Kaliner’s show that Keller has hooked up with the John Locke Foundation to pursue the incident further. I’ll keep you updated as soon as more information becomes available.
Is this really the America that we live in now? A concerned citizen tries to contact a government official over statements that he made in public and the next thing you know armed agents show up at his home?
-
Obama to fight judge’s ruling EPA overstepped bounds in revoking coal mine permit
Unified Patriots ^ | June 2, 2012 | Lady Impact Ohio
Posted on June 3, 2012 10:48:45 PM EDT by Texas Fossil
The sorry saga continues, as the Obama administration is intent on getting their way in everything and by any means possible.
In January of 2011 I reported that the EPA had revoked the permit for an already-in-use coal mine in West Virginia, the Spruce Mine to be specific operated by Arch Coal, citing “violations of the Clean Air Act.” This unprecedented action struck fear in the hearts of not only coal companies who have invested millions of dollars and time into securing the necessary permits, but other business owners as well. After all, why would they want to invest in projects if with a flick of the government pen, they could be revoked.
Last March the Obama administration received a smack-down from U.S. District Judge Amy Berman who ruled Arch Coal’s Spruce Mine permit was indeed valid.
But this is far from the end of the story. Yesterday House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) held an oversight hearing about this debacle and “invited” EPA Chair Lisa Jackson to attend. But in true Obama administration form, she and others in her committee snubbed her nose at Rep. Hastings and was a no-show. From Rep. Hastings press release:
The permit was declared “valid and in full force” but the Obama Administration is challenging the ruling, [emphasis mine] again trying to destroy coal mining jobs. While officials from the Obama Administration were invited to testify, none of them chose to accept the invitation and explain their actions to exceed their authority and destroy American jobs.
Yes, the Obama administration is again stamping their feet and challenging every ruling that stands in their way of attempting to put this country back into huts with only candles to keep us warm.
(Excerpt) Read more at unifiedpatriots.com ...
-
'Significant' rise in electric bills seen
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney June 4, 2012: 8:03 AM ET
Electric bills seen rising significantly to pay for cleaner coal plants. Utility executives bullish on solar, electric cars.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Higher electric bills. Emphasis on solar power. A surge in electric cars.
Those are some of the things about 500 utility executives see in the future of their industry, according to a poll conducted by consulting and construction firm Black & Veatch.
Rising utility bills: Over 90% of the executives surveyed believe that rules requiring the use of more renewable energy and a cut in pollution from coal-fired power plants will lead to higher monthly utility bills for consumers.
Over half said these bills will rise significantly.
No definition of "slightly" or "significantly" was provided in the study. But Black & Veatch said "slightly" in industry parlance usually means a 1% to 3% increase, while significantly could mean up to 10% or so.
The average American household spends $111 a month on electric bills, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Environmental and public health advocates fought hard for the new rules. The Environmental Protection Agency says they will save up to 11,000 lives a year by preventing ailments such as asthma, heart disease and cancer.
Fracking rules not that costly: Seventy percent of executives think new federal regulations requiring companies to limit air pollution from shale gas wells, as well as any additional rules, will "slightly" raise natural gas prices.
Twenty-three percent said the new rules will significantly raise prices.
Solar power more attractive than wind: Executives named solar power as the fourth-most attractive way of generating electricity that's environmentally friendly -- behind hydro, natural gas and nuclear.
Wind power, which placed third just two years ago, was bumped down to sixth place. Why the drop?
"There's already lots of wind installed," said Mark Gabriel, an executive in Black & Veatch's management consulting division, adding that many of the windiest spots near big cities already have turbines.
There's also uncertainty about whether wind's tax incentives will be renewed when they expire at the end of 2012 -- only about half the utility executives polled think they will be. Solar's tax credit extends to 2016.
Bullish on electric cars: Utility executives believe electric cars will eat up 7% of the nation's power supply by 2025.
To use that much juice, Black & Veatch estimates there would need to be 65 million electric cars on the road. Last year under 20,000 were sold.
First Published: June 4, 2012: 5:08 AM ET
Share
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
HOLY SHIT!
WHO THE FUCK VOTED FOR THIS SHIT?
FUCK YOU EVERY LIBERAL OBAMA VOTER.
-
EPA Enforcers: 'Way Of Life Act' Needed;' 'Individual Change' Isn't Enough
CNS News ^ | 6/5/12 | Craig Bannister
Posted on June 5, 2012 6:25:38 PM EDT by Nachum
n preparation for Obama-EPA Regional Administrator Al Armendariz’s testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) released a video montage of Obama EPA Regional Administrators longing to impose a green “Way Of Life Act” on Americans through the regulatory regime of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Regional Administrators talk of how they plan to “crucify” domestic energy producers, make their businesses “painful every step of the way,” or otherwise compel a green way-of-life.
Recently, Sen. Inhofe uncovered a video of Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz admitting that EPA’s “general philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of oil and gas companies – just as Roman soldiers would crucify random citizens in conquered villages, to make an example of them. Armendariz subsequently resigned under fire for the exposed comments.
“But, it’s not just Armendariz,” Sen. Inhofe’s office warns:
“The purpose of this video is to get to know President Obama’s “green generals” – the regional administrators – who are going into battle for the Obama-EPA, working hard to force a green “way of life act” in regions across the United States.”
In the Inhofe video, EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck claims, “I don’t think individual change is going to be enough” - while Armendariz twice says the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act can be used as proxies to enforce the “Way Of Life Act” he wishes he had.
“I don’t have a Way of Life Act that I can enforce - I’ve got a Clean Air Act, I’ve got a Clean Water Act, a Safe Drinking Water Act” that can be used to enforce green ideals, Armendariz says.
“nfortunately I don’t have a Way of Life Act I can enforce but at the same time EPA isn’t toothless and we do have
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
-
Lisa Jackson: EPA isn’t to blame for coal industry’s problems
Hot Air ^ | 6/12/12 | Erika Johnsen
Posted on Monday, June 11, 2012 4:22:14 PM by Nachum
Is this some sort of inept, tasteless joke? Try to read around the relentless environmental bias and feel-good blather of this glowing profile of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson from the Guardian, and you’ll recognize the same sort of economic-language usage employed by the wider Obama administration to try and disguise their many endeavors at central planning.
The president talks about “all of the above” energy, and I think we don’t realize enough how important that is. There are those who would like us to drop everything and say, time for another, a second fossil fuel boom, and the president is saying, but the future for our country is around clean energy, renewables, and getting that technology perfected and ready at a commercial scale here so we can sell it abroad. That will make our country stronger and create jobs as well. We should not put all our eggs in any one basket. And we should not, just because we have it, assume that means we should use fuels as though we have it — because energy independence requires a certain reduced demand. …
And then coal has another pollution problem, and that’s carbon pollution: it’s the most carbon-intense fossil fuel. And the president invested in carbon capture and sequestration technology as part of the Recovery Act. He said all along, I’m from a coal state, so I believe that if there’s going to be a future for coal it has to be one that deals with carbon pollution, with climate change. So in my opinion the problem for coal right now is entirely economic. The natural gas that this country has and is continuing to develop is cheaper right now on average. And so people who are making investment decisions are not unmindful of that — how could
(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...
These people are freaking nuts.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Pennsylvania coal companies announce layoffs, blame Obama
Washington Examiner ^ | 7/23/2012 | Joel Gehrke
Posted on July 23, 2012 9:17:40 PM EDT by markomalley
Two coal companies in Pennsylvania blamed President Obama and his Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the layoffs announced last week.
“[T]he escalating costs and uncertainty generated by recently advanced EPA regulations and interpretations have created a challenging business climate for the entire coal industry,” said PBS Coals Inc. President and CEO D. Lynn Shanks in a statement on Friday, as noted by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The company also cited weaker-than-normal demand for coal.
Shanks’ comment on the EPA came as he announced a 28 percent work force reduction. “PBS Coals Inc. and its affiliate company, RoxCoal Inc., laid off about 225 workers as part of an immediate idling of some deep and surface mines in Somerset County,” Post-Gazette added. “The company now employs 795 workers.”
House Oversight and Government Reform Committee staff issued a report last week faulting the EPA for over-regulating the industries under its control. “Over 40 EPA regulations cited by job creators as barriers to growth and expansion in the Committee’s February 2011 staff report remain a problem,” the staff report said. “EPA’s proposal to regulate coal combustion residuals (“coal ash”) usurps states’ previous role and exerts unprecedented federal control over the utility industry . . . Compliance costs range from $78-110 billion over the next 20 years while job loss estimates range from 39,000, under a low estimate, to 316,000, under a high estimate.”
General Manager Ronald Koontz, a mine manager, hit the president for waging a “war on coal seeking to destroy the coal industry and the jobs of our own employees and the livelihoods of their families.”
Koontz’ remark dovetails with those of EPA’s New England Regional Administrator Curt Spaulding, who said the EPA had adopted a policy towards the coal industry that amounted to saying “we just think those communities should just go away,” as he put it earlier this year.
“You can’t imagine how tough that was, because — you got to remember — if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal,” Spaulding said. “It is painful every step of the way.”
-
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/28/record-number-of-coal-fired-generators-to-be-shut-down-in-2012
Obamas war on coal shutting down 175 power plants this year. Wnder how man people this communist traitor is putting out of work this time.
-
Obama Didn’t Build OhioEnergy’s Coal Mine, but Company Says His Regulations Have Torn it Down
President Obama will campaign in Ohio tomorrow, but he will be greeted by newly unemployed workers in the swing state. Today, OhioAmerica Energy announced that it is shutting down operations at its operations near Brilliant, OH. The company pulls no punches, blaming the Obama administration’s regulatory policies for forcing the plant’s closure.
The company press release states that “Regulatory actions by President Barack Obama and his appointees and followers were cited as the entire reason. ‘Mr. Obama has already destroyed 83,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation in America,” said Mr. Michael T. W. Carey, Vice President of Government Affairs for Murray Energy. ‘Electric prices in the recent PJM Interconnection monthly auction were bid up 800 percent (8 times) for 2015-2016 because of this,’ he added.”
The press release adds up the jobs that the Obama regulations have destroyed at the Brilliant mining operation: “‘At its peak, OhioAmerican employed 239 local people in high-paying, well-benefited jobs,’ said Mr. Stanley T. Piasecki, General Manager and Superintendent. ‘University studies show that our Mines can create up to eleven (11) secondary jobs in our communities, for store clerks, teachers, etc., to serve our direct employees. Thus, if one uses the eleven (11) to one (1) multiplier, the Obama Administration has destroyed 2,868 jobs in eastern Ohio with this forced Mine closure,’ stated Mr. Piasecki.”
OhioAmerica’s founder, Robert E. Murray, was so distraught by the closure that he went to the mine and personally announced the layoffs to each employee, according to the press release.
“‘Mr. Murray created OhioAmerican, and our production began in May, 2007,’” said Mr. Piasecki. ‘The Mine was intended to last for at least ten (10) years. Now we have been forced by our own Country’s President and his followers and supporters to permanently close the operation,’ added Mr. Piasecki.”
The company release concludes on an ominous note: “‘There will be additional layoffs, not only at Murray Energy, but also throughout the United States coal industry due to Mr. Obama’s ‘War on Coal’ and the destruction that it has caused to so many jobs and families in the Ohio Valley area and elsewhere,’ said Mr. Murray. ‘Both Mr. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden stated that there would be ‘no coal in America’ prior to their elections,’ said Mr. Piasecki. ‘They are making good on their intentions while they destroy so many lives and family livelihoods in this area for no benefit whatsoever.’”
President Obama promised to use “skyrocketing” energy prices to destroy the coal industry during his campaign for the presidency. One of his EPA administrations lamented that the agency could not simply tell coal producing communities to “go away.”
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/07/31/ohio-energy-company-shutters-mine-thrashes-obama-in-layoff-announcement/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Tatler
-
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/08/01/obama-regulations-kill-ohio-coal-mine-hundreds-of-jobs-wiped-out/
Disgusting. Obama and every cult follower belong in a homeless shelter begging for table scraps.
-
Black Hills to shutter some coal-fired plants
Posted on August 7, 2012 at 6:29 am by Associated Press in Coal, Energy demand
inShare.
.
A bucket of coal. (Jennifer A. Dlouhy/The Houston Chronicle)
RAPID CITY, S.D. — Black Hills Corp. said Monday that its utilities will close some older coal-fired power plants because it would cost too much to bring them in compliance with new federal and state environmental regulations.
The company said its Colorado Electric subsidiary will idle a plant in Canon City, Colo., at the end of this year but keep it available for power-generation during peak demand until retiring the plant at the end of 2013.
Colorado Electric will also suspend operations at the end of 2012 for two units of a natural-gas-fired plant in Pueblo, Colo.
The Black Hills Power subsidiary will suspend operations Aug. 31 at a coal-fired unit in Rapid City, S.D., and retire the plant in March 2014. It also plans to retire plants near Gillette and Osage, Wyo., in March 2014.
Last month, Colorado Electric proposed building a natural gas-fired plant to open in 2016 and replace the power produced by the Canon City coal plant that will close at the end of next year.
The company said that also last month, Black Hills Power received approval to build a new gas-fired plant to replace the three coal-fired plants being shuttered. The new plant will be a joint venture with Cheyenne Light, Fuel & Power and begin operating in late 2014.
Coal power is being buffeted by competition from cheaper natural gas, which has led some utilities to switch from coal, and by tougher air-quality regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a rule last year aimed at reducing emissions of mercury and other toxic air pollution from coal-fired plants. The rule could force utilities to clean up or close hundreds of coal-fired plants. The EPA agreed recently to review how the rule affects new plants but says it won’t change the stricter standards for existing ones.
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/08/07/black-hills-to-shutter-some-coal-fired-plants
-
Ousted EPA administrator vows to “stop the construction of any new coal plants in Texas”
Hotair ^ | 08/06/2012 | Rob Bluey
Posted on Monday, August 06, 2012 2:20:28
Al Armendariz's big mouth cost him his job as a regional administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now that he's working for the Sierra Club, Armendariz appears even more opinionated about the industry he once regulated.
In his first comments since resigning from EPA in April, Armendariz unloaded on the coal industry, called President Obama the most environmental president ever, and attacked the state of Texas for fighting the EPA in court. He also addressed the controversy surrounding his comments comparing the EPA's philosophy to the brutal tactics used by the ancient Roman army to intimidate its adversaries.
Armendariz's most pointed comments to the Texas Tribune came on the subject of coal. He's spearheading the EPA's Beyond Coal campaign in Texas, which, according to Armendariz, basically amounts to destroying the industry.
TT: What made you decide to join the Sierra Club?
Armendariz: The coal industry is destroying communities, it’s poisoning our air and our water and our land. And it’s damaging our climate in Texas. And I am very concerned about what climate change is going to do to this state, and I’m very concerned about the role of the coal industry in causing climate change. I wanted to join an organization with a track record of success in taking on the coal industry, and I wanted to join an organization that I felt I could contribute to, and contribute to additional success. And I found that in the Sierra Club and in the coal campaign.
TT: So you’re going to be working with the Beyond Coal campaign. What does that mean you’ll be doing exactly?
Armendariz: I have a small handful of objectives. The first is to stop the construction of any new coal plants in Texas. And also to stop the expansion of any additional coal exports from Texas ports [to] overseas. The second objective is to work on the transition … to clean renewable sources of energy. And the third objective is to work really with all of the stakeholders in the state to further the development of renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar and geothermal.
TT: If we shut down coal plants, we still obviously have to get power. Is natural gas part of the solution?
Armendariz: My principal objective is to replace our use of coal with renewable energy sources like wind and solar and geothermal, with efforts at energy efficiency to reduce demand. If we’re going to use natural gas to replace some of the existing coal capacity, I think we should use it as little as possible. And if we’re going to use it, I do think it is incumbent on the natural gas industry to assure the highest standards of protection to the air and the water of the communities that live near the natural gas fields.
When he asked by the Texas Tribune about America’s natural gas boom — thanks to oft-maligned fracking technology — Armendariz, not surpringly, voiced alarm as well. It would seem he wants to rely solely on renewable energy, which accounted for approximately 9% of U.S. energy consumption in 2011, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. See chart below.
Can the United States produce enough electricity from wind, solar and geothermal? According to the government’s own data, wind accounted for 1.20% of energy consumption in 2011, solar was at 0.16% and geothermal was slightly better at 0.23%. Those numbers are minuscule compared to coal’s 20%, and yet Armendariz is now on a warpath to destroy the coal industry.
Interestingly, Armendariz said in the interview he enjoyed good relations with the energy industry as an EPA administrator. That would contrast sharply with his comments in the video that surfaced earlier this year describing the EPA’s approach:
I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them.
And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. And so you make examples out of people who are in this case not compliant with the law. Find people who are not compliant with the law, and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them, and there is a deterrent effect there.
Armendariz later apologized and resigned. Texas Tribune didn’t ask him about his comments directly, but did wonder why he skipped a U.S. House hearing this spring. Armendariz said it wouldn’t have been productive in light of his registration in April.
Another interesting tidbit: Armendariz said it was unfortunate the state of Texas wouldn’t work in “partnership with the EPA”. Attorney General Greg Abbott took the EPA to court instead, attacking regulations imposed by government bureaucrats at EPA.
Despite some complaints from the environmentalist left that President Obama hasn’t done enough, Armendariz is still high on his old boss. “I think really without hesitation that he is going to go down as the most environmental of any of our presidents,” he said.
-
Coal Miners’ Union Sits Out Presidential Race
Updated: August 9, 2012 | 3:01 p.m.
August 9, 2012 | 6:00 a.m.
Amy Harder
Mike Caputo, a member of the UMWA and a Democratic member of the West Virginia House of Delegates, stands near the house where he grew up in Rivesville, W.V. The coal plant in the background, one of the oldest in the nation, is shutting down
FAIRMONT, W.Va.—After giving then-Sen. Barack Obama a full-throttled endorsement in the 2008 presidential election, the United Mine Workers of America has decided not to endorse either Obama or the presumptive Republican nominee, Mitt Romney, in 2012.
“As of right now, we’ve elected to stay out of this election,” said Mike Caputo, a UMWA official and a Democratic member of the West Virginia
House of Delegates. “Our members right now have indicated to stay out of this race, and that’s why we’ve done that.... I don’t think quite frankly that coalfield folks are crazy about either candidate.”
Both candidates are trying to prove otherwise to voters in coal-intensive swing states. Earlier this week the Obama campaign released in Ohio
governor in 2003 standing in front of a coal plant, saying that he wouldn’t support jobs that kill people.
For his part, Romney is claiming Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency is waging a war on coal with a slew of regulations.
(RELATED: Smart Grid, Poor Economy Keeps the Lights On)
The 54-year-old Caputo, who grew up across the street from a coal plant near Fairmont in central West Virginia and has been in the coal industry virtually his whole life, said he couldn’t remember a time UMWA did not endorse a presidential candidate. Caputo is a vice president on the UMWA’s International Executive Board.
“It’s unusual,” he said during an interview at UMWA’s Fairmont office. Caputo, who describes himself as a “hard-core Democrat,” intends to vote For Obama. “I’m loyal to my party,” he said.
David Kameras, a UMWA spokesman based at the union’s headquarters in Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C.
, said UMWA has not officially completed its endorsement selection decisions for the 2012 election and expects to do so by about mid-September. In 2008, UMWA endorsed Obama in May of that year.
"Our members count on coal-fired power plants and burning of coal to keep jobs,” Caputo said. “We’re a very Democratic union and we try to listen to the rank and file. They’ve sent a clear message that they’re not supportive of the environmental rules that are being put in place.”
Caputo pointed out that many of the biggest EPA rules, including one finalized last December to control mercury and other air toxic pollution from coal plants, were first enacted under Republican administrations, including President George H.W. Bush.
“A lot of our members don’t realize that,” Caputo said. “But whoever is in charge is going to get blamed.”
(RELATED: Voices From This Summer's Drought)
Caputo also noted that newly discovered resources of shale natural gas found all over the country, including the coal-intensive states of West Virginia, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
, have contributed to coal’s decline as low natural gas prices compel utilities to shift from coal to gas as a power generator.
But politically, the EPA is the culprit for the coal industry’s woes. Throughout Appalachia where Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia converge, the coal industry’s disgruntlement with Obama is plastered on yard signs and billboards.
One billboard alongside a freeway near the Pennsylvania and West Virginia border said drivers were entering “The Obama administration’s no jobs zone.” The billboard was sponsored by a coal-industry group, the Federation for American Coal, Energy, and Security (FACES of Coal). Yard signs seen along back roads and throughout towns juxtapose the word “coal” with “fire Obama.”
Labor groups almost always align with Democratic candidates, and Caputo said the UMWA would be very unlikely to endorse Romney given his record with the coal industry and his positions on labor issues.
“Governor Romney’s record on coal isn’t any better,” Caputo said, referring to the comments Romney made in 2003 that were featured in the Obama ad—and the fact that Romney’s former air chief in Massachusetts, Gina McCarthy, now holds a similar position at Obama’s EPA. “Mitt Romney has never been a friend of our industry," Caputo said. "Now he’s out preaching he’s all for coal, but his history sure doesn’t show that.”
(RELATED: Expect Romney to Surprise With Running Mate Pick)
But the union has been ranting more about Obama for much of 2012. UMWA President Cecil Roberts made headlines earlier this year when he invoked terrorism references to describe the actions of EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and said that the agency’s rules could prevent UMWA from endorsing Obama. “The Navy SEALs shot Osama bin Laden in Pakistan and Lisa Jackson shot us in Washington,” Roberts said on a West Virginia radio show in April.
Roberts’s comments illustrate how much has changed in just four years. In his ringing endorsement of Obama in 2008, Roberts said that Obama “understands that coal will remain a primary source for electricity generation in this country for many decades to come.”
He went on: “Obama will work to ensure the future of American coal and the jobs that go with it by moving aggressively to develop and implement carbon capture and sequestration technology.”
Obama did make a push for carbon capture and sequestration by providing about $5 billion in the 2009 stimulus package for CCS, dubbed “clean coal” technology, but that money has dried up and the technology, while technically proven, is far too expensive to be commercially available.
Some experts have said that UMWA could endorse Obama, citing stronger mine-safety laws the administration has implemented and the 2009 nomination of Joseph Main, a UMWA member, as the assistant Labor secretary for mine safety and health.
“Never did we have a president, Democrat or Republican, who wanted someone from this union to head up that agency,” Caputo said. “So I’m very appreciative.”
But with one EPA rule after another coming down the pike, that wasn’t enough.
In 2008, UMWA said it had more than 100,000 members, including coal miners and other workers in coal mining communities ranging from nursing home workers to manufacturers. Kameras said that the union hadn't updated its membership numbers and didn't have any more recent numbers to offer, but experts say that its membership could be seeing a steep drop given the decline in the coal industry.
Want to stay ahead of the curve? Sign up for National Journal’s AM & PM Must Reads. News and analysis to ensure you don’t miss a thing.
-
Wow! Hundreds of Ohio Coal Miners Stand in Line for Mitt Romney
Gateway Pundit ^ | 8/19/12 | Jim Hoft
Posted on August 19, 2012 8:54:10 PM EDT
Hundreds of coal miners and their families stand in line while waiting to attend a rally at the Century Mine near Beallsville, Ohio, for Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at thegatewaypundit.com ...
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/08/wow-hundreds-of-ohio-coal-miners-stand-in-line-for-mitt-romney
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
U.S. court strikes down EPA rule on coal pollution
reuters ^ | 8/21/2012 | Valerie Volcovici
Posted on August 21, 2012 7:10:10 PM EDT by tobyhill
A U.S. appeals court on Tuesday overturned a key Obama administration rule to reduce harmful emissions from coal-burning power plants, sparking a rally in coal company shares and relief among utility firms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said in a 2-1 decision that the Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its mandate with the rule, which was to limit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from power plants in 28 mostly Eastern states and Texas.
In the latest setback for the EPA, the court sent the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule back for revision, telling the agency to administer its existing Clean Air Interstate Rule - the Bush-era regulation that it was updating - in the interim. The EPA said it was reviewing the ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at in.reuters.com ...
-
3 Coal-Powered W. V. Plants to Shut Down
WVVA,.com ^ | September 1, 2012 | Rachel Lucas
Posted on Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:03:18 AM
Three coal-fired power plants in West Virginia will soon stop generating electricity.
The last day of power generation for FirstEnergy Corp.'s plants in Albright, Rivesville and Willow Island was scheduled for Saturday.
FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin said the plants would be deactivated by the end of the day.
Officials say some workers likely will remain on the job for a short period. They will deactivate the plants and take care of permits and environmental regulations. The plants employ a total 210 workers.
FirstEnergy also plans to close six coal-fired operations in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Maryland. The Ohio-based utility attributes the closures to new federal environmental regulations aimed at reducing emissions of mercury and other toxic pollution.
http://
-
Global market conditions idles CONSOL mine
Weak market conditions in exports to Asia, Europe and South America cited
By: | TriCities.com
Published: September 05, 2012 Updated: September 05, 2012 - 8:00 AM
» 1 Comments | Post a Comment
By MIKE STILL
SPECIAL TO THE HERALD COURIER
CONSOL Energy said global market conditions led to the idling of one of its two Virginia coal mines – the Buchanan Mine complex near Oakwood in Buchanan County – and could result in the idling of another.
The decision has Buchanan County officials worried, because it could mean a $2 million hit against the county’s 2012-13 budget revenues.
“It’s a major impact,” County Administrator Craig Horne said Tuesday. “We’ve been planning for some time because of the state of the coal and gas industry. It’s hard to predict, but we will see a loss of revenue.”
The Pittsburg, Pa.-based CONSOL, which operates coal mines across Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio and Pennsylvania, announced Tuesday that it was idling the Buchanan Mine for 30 to 60 days.
“CONSOL Energy is responding to weak market conditions throughout its export markets in Asia, Europe and South America,” the company said in a written announcement of the decision.
The Buchanan Mine – CONSOL’s only mine in the county – produces about 400,000 tons monthly of metallurgical-grade coal for steel production. According to information on CONSOL’s website, Buchanan set a company record for coal production in 2011 with 5.7 million tons mined that year.
CONSOL, employing about 9,000 workers, produced a total of 62 million tons of coal across all of its operations in 2011; and also produced 127 billion cubic feet of gas, according to its website.
The company’s other mine in Virginia, the CONSOL-owned, contractor-operated Amonate mine complex, which straddles Tazewell County, Va., and McDowell County, W.Va., and produces about 35,000 tons of metallurgical coal a month, could face a similar idling.
CONSOL spokeswoman Cathy St. Clair said Tuesday that the company has furloughed 606 employees at the Buchanan complex. The complex’s preparation plant will retain six employees while another 160 salaried employees and 11 mine rescue team members will stay on the job, St. Clair said.
St. Clair said she did not have the total number of employees at the Amonate complex, because contractors operating the mine and preparation plant staff the complex.
Buchanan Mine employees on furlough will be eligible for unemployment benefits, St. Clair said, and CONSOL will cover their health and life insurance benefits during the idling for at least 60 days.
CONSOL is still reviewing the market for coal and steel production before any decision is made on idling Amonate and whether benefits for furloughed employees will continue if Buchanan is idled longer, she said.
In Buchanan County, Horne said that Virginia coal severance tax revenues make up a significant portion of the county budget. Horne said he and Buchanan County Treasurer Bill Keene began another look at county revenues Tuesday in the wake of CONSOL’s news, and both agreed that the Buchanan idling could mean as much as $2 million in lost revenue for the 2012-13 county fiscal year.
“It’s hard to say right now, but we could lose about $1 million a month,” Keene said of the idling. “This gas and coal market has bottomed out.”
With the state of the coal market overall, Keene said, Buchanan County could see a loss of $8 million to $10 million in severance tax revenue this fiscal year.
“That revenue just about runs the county,” said Keene, who was working on detailed revenue estimates this week for the county Board of Supervisors.
Candidates for the 9th District congressional election both cited CONSOL’s idling as evidence of their economic campaign positions.
Incumbent Republican U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith blamed President Barack Obama, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and activist groups for attacking the coal industry.
“With current policies, the down economy is not going to improve soon,” Griffith said in a written statement issued Tuesday. “Obviously, this means that construction, including items built with steel, have been put on hold.
“President Obama, his Administration, and his allies – like MoveOn.org and the Sierra Club – are all very clear about their agenda – make using coal history,” Griffith said. “Today’s news is just the latest demonstration that this agenda is making gains. … I believe the administrative branch of the federal government and its leaders are arbitrarily and capriciously targeting this profession.”
Democratic 9th District challenger Anthony Flaccavento said the CONSOL idling represents a need for comprehensive economic planning in Southwest Virginia.
"The idling of the Buchanan Mine is another sign that we need a strong, comprehensive plan to help put Southwest Virginia back to work,” Flaccavento said Tuesday. “We need to develop regulations that strike a better balance between jobs, the safety and health of miners, and protection of our neighbors’ land, air and water. We must free up the real job creators: the middle-class and working-class families who represent the majority of consumer demand, the small business owners and entrepreneurs who expand to generate the majority of new jobs, and the independent community banks that help finance that expansion.”
Flaccavento said that focusing on the region’s overall economy will increase demand for steel and other construction materials, helping to boost demand for the region’s metallurgical coal.
“As we do this, we also need to fully support laid-off miners and their families,” Flaccavento said.
-
Federal regs force coal plant closures now, higher rates later, critics warn
Fox News ^ | 9/5/2012 | By Joshua Rhett Miller
Posted on Wednesday, September 05, 2012 3:52:48 PM
The closure of seven coal-fired electric plants in four states could be a sign of things to come as tough new emissions standards threaten to relegate America’s top energy source to the back burner.
FirstEnergy Corp., headquartered in Ohio, closed power plants on Saturday in Albright, Rivesville, and Willow Island, W.Va., along with four others in Ohio, Maryland and Pennsylvania as the company phases out aging facilities that cannot comply with new environmental regulations. Three others in Ohio also will be closed in 2015, company officials told FoxNews.com.
“We estimate that it will cost approximately $975 million to make our remaining seven coal-fired power plants compliant with the new [Mercury and Air Toxics Standards] rules,” FirstEnergy spokesman Mark Durbin told FoxNews.com. “Another challenge that the entire industry is facing is a very aggressive three-year timeframe to get the work done. It’s also important to note that numerous other [Environmental Protection Agency] regulations, including those for coal ash, water intake and particulates, are on the horizon.”
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Wonderful news. We can start getting people over to Solar and Wind and catch up with the rest of the country
-
Wonderful news. We can start getting people over to Solar and Wind and catch up with the rest of the country
Yeah - more misery for thousands of workers and families.
Unreal how disgusting you are.
-
Yeah - more misery for thousands of workers and families.
Unreal how disgusting you are.
Wrong.....with wind and solar, people will be able to independently generate their own electricity for their homes and help allow us to get off the dick of Arab countries who loot this country every day on selling oil. Coal requires us to destroy the enviroment and pollute our freshwater supplies to extract...we need to rid ourselves of fossil fuels as much as possible to preserve our resources for the next generation
-
Wrong.....with wind and solar, people will be able to independently generate their own electricity for their homes and help allow us to get off the dick of Arab countries who loot this country every day on selling oil. Coal requires us to destroy the enviroment and pollute our freshwater supplies to extract...we need to rid ourselves of fossil fuels as much as possible to preserve our resources for the next generation
::)
and what about the thousands of families who will be losing their income and how do they feed their families?
Unlike the welfare thugs and leeches - most just want to work for a living.
-
Yeah - more misery for thousands of workers and families.
Unreal how disgusting you are.
Wrong.....with wind and solar, people will be able to independently generate their own electricity for their homes and help allow us to get off the dick of Arab countries who loot this country every day on selling oil. Coal requires us to destroy the enviroment and pollute our freshwater supplies to extract...we need to rid ourselves of fossil fuels as much as possible to preserve our resources for the next generation
-
::)
and what about the thousands of families who will be losing their income and how do they feed their families?
Unlike the welfare thugs and leeches - most just want to work for a living.
They can work on the solar and wind farms.... ::)
-
They can work on the solar and wind farms.... ::)
When wind and solar can survive without government subsidies, get back to me.
-
How many things are using government subsidies of some sort?
Most transportation? Aren't huge tax breaks to oil companies a "government subsidy"?
Seems like free money is free money.
Oil companies could survive with out subsidies, would have investigate further what transportation is getting. Solar and Wind go belly up without, hell they go bell up with it
-
Obama Regulations Force Coal Mines To Shut Down…Right Before The Election
Hillbuzz ^ | 9/18/12
Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2012 8:32:29 PM by Impala64ssa
If Obama is counting on winning Pennsylvania, he may have a little surprise coming to him. According to Business Week, Alpha Natural Resources is closing down mines in West Virginia, Virginia, and Pennsylvania IMMEDIATELY. A total of 1200 people will be without jobs.
Is this the hope and change Obama was talking about? Or was it his promise a few years back that coal regulations would cause energy prices to “necessarily sky-rocket”? Not only are you going to have a bunch of angry, unemployed people, but those same folks won’t even be able to afford to turn their own lights on in their homes. Of course, with no jobs, they won’t be able to pay their mortgages, so I guess that’s a moot point.
As far as I could find, the Corrupt Media hasn’t even touched this story yet. Drudge had a link, and I found the Businessweek story, but apparently few else seem to care that another working class industry that makes our Nation thrive, is now tanking.
I bet all of those unemployed miners in Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia will be clamoring to vote for the man who put them on food stamps. Why worry about the livelihoods of American citizens when there’s dirty air, water and emissions to worry about?
But don’t worry about those dirty miners. We have more important things to worry about, like Mitt Romney telling the truth in a speech. Four months ago. Now THAT’S a priority.
-
Alpha closing 8 mines, cutting 1,200 jobs in all
By VICKI SMITH
Associated Press
MORGANTOWN, W.Va. (AP) -- Coal producer Alpha Natural Resources said Tuesday it was cutting production by 16 million tons and eliminating 1,200 jobs companywide, laying off 400 workers immediately by closing mines in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.
The mine shutdowns start Tuesday, while the rest of the layoffs will be completed by the end of the first quarter after Alpha fulfills current sales obligations, Chief Executive Officer Kevin Crutchfield said. In all, the layoffs amount to nearly a tenth of Alpha's 13,000-person workforce.
Alpha said it was closing four mines in West Virginia, three in Virginia and one in Pennsylvania. They are a mix of deep and surface mines, and all are non-union operations.
Company spokesman Ted Pile said most of the displaced workers may eventually be rehired, either assigned to new jobs in other locations or replacing outside contractors. Only 150 workers in West Virginia and three in Pennsylvania will not have any other employment opportunities with the company, he said.
Though some miners will stay on to seal the operations, most will either be reassigned or laid off immediately.
Support positions will also be cut proportionally as Alpha reduces its operating regions from four to two, Crutchfield said, and two executives will retire Nov. 1.
It wasn't immediately what other states would be affected by the still looming layoffs.
Crutchfield said the shutdowns and layoffs are a necessary part of ensuring Alpha survives in what has become a difficult U.S. market, where coal companies face a dual challenge: Power plants are shifting to cheap, abundant natural gas, while companies like his face "a regulatory environment that's aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal."
The affected West Virginia operations are the Alloy deep mine near Powellton, the Alloy surface mine near Boomer, the Premium highwall mine near Gilbert and the White Flame Surface Mine near Wharncliffe. The Virginia mines are Guest Mountain deep mines No. 8 and No. 9 near Norton, and the Twin Star Surface Mine near Hurley. In Pennsylvania, Alpha will close its Dora deep mine in Jefferson County.
Bristol, Va.-based Alpha will cut production 16 million tons by early 2013 and reduce overhead by $150 million as it shifts away from thermal coal used in domestic power generation to concentrate on metallurgical coal used in steelmaking overseas.
Globally, "there remains a structural undersupply" of metallurgical coal, Crutchfield said, and Alpha expects to see demand grow by more than 100 million tons by the end of the decade.
Alpha's $7.1 billion acquisition of Massey Energy helped create "one of the most valuable met coal franchises in the world," Crutchfield said, effectively doubling its production potential. It has 25 million to 30 million tons of export capacity through the East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico, giving it the ability to scale up exports quickly, he said.
About 40 percent of Alpha's production cuts will come from high-cost eastern mines "that are unlikely to be competitive for the foreseeable future," Crutchfield said, while about half will occur in the Powder River Basin, the largest coal-producing region in the U.S. The basin is located in northeast Wyoming.
Alpha's Wyoming operations, Alpha Coal West, consist of the Eagle Butte and Belle Ayre surface coal mines. Together, the mines have about 650 employees and produce about 50 million tons of coal a year, according to the Wyoming Mining Association. The number of layoffs that might occur there was unclear.
"We're still trying to figure out, with the reduction in production, what our operations will look like," said Mike Lepchitz, spokesman for the Belle Ayre Mine.
Crutchfield said "the elimination of jobs on this scale is something I take very seriously."
"Unfortunately," he said, "we think we have to do it to set the company on the right foot going forward."
In the long run, the new strategy will create a leaner, more agile company that can readily adapt to changing market circumstances, he said.
Politicians - mostly Republican - across the coalfields were quick to pounce on the announcement as further evidence that President Barack Obama's administration is waging a "war on coal" through new air-pollution standards, but many U.S. power companies have long planned to close or convert some of their aging, inefficient coal-fired plants.
"A group of government bureaucrats have decided the coal industry isn't something that they like, so they're going to try to force it out of business," said U.S. Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va. "This is appalling and it must stop."
In West Virginia, fellow Republican Rep. Shelley Moore Capito said her constituents want to stay in their home state and raise their families, "but the president's extreme policies are cripplingly entire towns and making it harder for workers to find jobs."
The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration said the number of mining jobs in West Virginia fell by about 1,300 in the second quarter as other coal companies laid off workers and idled operations or shifted resources.
Chris Hamilton, vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, said layoffs are likely to continue through the end of the year and into the first quarter as operators struggle with both regulations and the loss of traditional customers such as power plants.
"There's no sign of that easing up anytime soon," he said. "We're clearly on the valley floor here of the cyclic nature of the industry."
---
Associated Press writer Mead Gruver contributed from Cheyenne, Wyo.
-
Report: More than 200 coal-fired generators slated for shutdown
11:29 PM 09/21/2012
Within the next three to five years, more than 200 coal-fired electric generating units will be shut down across 25 states due to EPA regulations and factors including cheap natural gas, according to a new report by the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE).
“This is further evidence that EPA is waging a war on coal, and a war on affordable electricity prices and jobs. EPA continues to ignore the damage that its new regulations are causing to the U.S. economy and to states that depend on coal for jobs and affordable electricity,” said Mike Duncan, president and CEO of ACCCE, in a statement.
However, ACCCE notes that EPA policies may have played a role more than 4,800 megawatts of announced closures not included on in their report which would bring total shutdowns to 241 coal generator in 30 states — more than 36,000 MW of electric generation or 11 percent of the U.S. coal fleet.
The most affected states include Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina, which will see a combined 103 coal-fired generators shut down.
“Actually our utility rates are higher and the impact is such that it’s going to interfere with the quality of life that a lot of individuals have in my community,” said John McNeil, mayor of Red Springs, N.C., in an ACCCE video — one of the heavily affected states.
According to ACCCE, coal provides more than half of North Carolina’s power. Poorer areas, like Red Springs, where a number of residents are on fixed income or live below the poverty line, are adversely affected by higher electricity bills because they eat up a greater portion of their income.
“During my lifetime, Red Springs has gone through some fairly significant changes. We don’t have the large textile plants which provide employments opportunities for many people. We’ve just shifted away,” said John Roberts of John’s Fuel Service, also in Red Springs.
“Most people, their income is fixed,” Roberts continued.
“They can’t say ‘hey, I need fourteen dollars an hour as compared to twelve an hour to offset my energy price,’” he argued.
On Friday, the coal industry caught a slight break as the House voted 233 to 175 to stop the Obama administration’s so-called “war on coal,” passing a bill that would limit the EPA’s regulatory authority over greenhouse gases and limit the Interior Department’s ability to issue coal mining rules.
“Since taking office, the Obama Administration has waged a multi-front war on coal — on coal jobs, on the small businesses in the mining supply chain, and on the low-cost energy that millions of Americans rely upon,” said Washington Republican Rep. Doc Hastings on the House floor Thursday.
Earlier this week, coal company Alpha Natural Resources announced it would be laying off 1,200 workers and closing eight coal mines to face two new challenges: cheap natural gas and “a regulatory environment that’s aggressively aimed at constraining the use of coal.”
“These lost jobs aren’t random events — they are the direct result of the policies and actions of the Obama Administration — these are the outcomes of their regulatory war on coal,” Hastings added.
Follow Michael on Twitter
Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/21/report-more-than-200-coal-fired-generators-slated-for-shutdown/
Copyright © 2009 Daily Caller. All rights reserved.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/21/report-more-than-200-coal-fired-generators-slated-for-shutdown/#ixzz27EBrieac
-
Obama’s abandoned power plants
By Ken Blackwell 6:37 PM 09/28/2012
ADVERTISEMENT
If voters knew how America’s economy would look after two terms of President Barack Obama’s administration, Mitt Romney would win in a landslide.
In the 2008 campaign, President Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that the “notion of no coal … is an illusion.” He noted that he favors a cap-and-trade system, “o 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.”
While Obama did not get to implement cap-and-trade, he found other ways to shut down coal-burning power plants.
In the name of a rigidly anti-prosperity ideology, Obama’s administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, is continuing its war on jobs and reliable sources of energy. And like most onerous regulations, the true costs are not immediately visible.
Three new EPA regulations on emissions have been announced. Collectively, they’ll cost American consumers more than $13 billion per year. Also, according to estimates by the Senate Republican Policy Committee, other rules dealing with coal ash and air could cost an additional $90 billion annually.
Obama’s claim to have an “all-of-the-above” energy strategy is a ruse. Instead, his administration seems determined to extend our economic recession, while government bureaucrats find creative ways to make energy too expensive.
More than 2,000 employees of the coal industry were laid off this year, and the industry expects 10,000 more layoffs in direct and related jobs. In addition, as reported by Human Events, leaked Obama administration documents estimate that one rule on water quality requirements will be responsible for an additional 7,000 job losses.
The new regulations are so extreme that, in effect, they require all new power plants to be powered by natural gas, an imperfect fuel. This may make the natural gas lobbyists who work with the Obama administration happy, but the incredible amounts of methane-expanded natural gas would not please environmentalists.
In five months, natural gas prices have increased by 52%, with the Obama administration’s rules largely to blame. According to Reuters data, as demand is expanding globally, natural gas is quickly approaching a price which is $2 more than the same per unit, which results in higher energy prices for cash-strapped consumers who already heat their homes with natural gas.
Even though industry has been able to dramatically decrease noxious pollutants from coal over the past 40 years, Obama’s heavy-handed rules have slashed coal production by one-third. In my state of Ohio, the coal industry has been devastated by drastic EPA regulations.
As you can see from this map, 175 fully functional coal-burning plants are being retired across the country, which puts further strain on our outdated energy grid while putting thousands of employees out of work.
Environmentalist groups aligned with the administration, such as the Sierra Club, are happy to see coal-burning plants shut down, and have nearly 400 more plants targeted. But with the administration’s emphasis on efficient “green energy” such as solar panels, they would not want to see the recent Heritage Foundation study which shows such a switch would increase a family’s $200/month energy bill to $700.
President Barack Obama is playing favorites with sources of energy, while destroying jobs and hurting consumers. America is in desperate need of a new direction on energy policy.
Ken Blackwell was the vice chairman of the 2008 GOP platform.
Article printed from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/28/obamas-abandoned-power-plants/
-
With a few words, Romney causes a coal rally: Obama could put 77,000 megawatts out of commission
The Charleston Daily Mail ^ | October 9, 2012 | Hoppy Kercheval
Posted on Tuesday, October 09, 2012 1:01:11 AM by 2ndDivisionVet
"I like coal," Mitt Romney during the presidential debate.
The beleaguered industry got a lift from the Republican presidential candidate, and it needed it.
Romney's endorsement of coal as an essential ingredient to the country's energy portfolio caused company stocks to bump up. Arch Coal, Alpha Natural Resources, Consol, Peabody Energy and Walter Energy all saw increases of at least 4 percent the day after the debate.
"It's amazing what 15 words about coal in a presidential debate can do for stocks," Michael Dudas of Sterne Agee told Reuters. "These stocks have been volatile, but you can't discount what a man running for president said about coal. Call it the Romney rally."
Coal claims President Obama and his EPA have waged a "war on coal" over the last four years. One can disagree with the analogy, but it's clear the president's strategy plays favorites - green energy and natural gas over coal.
The drop in natural gas prices, slack demand and the toughened regulatory approach by the EPA are the trifecta that have triggered industry layoffs and pessimism about the future.
Economists at The Brattle Group reported earlier that market conditions and the regulatory environment will cause about 30,000 megawatts (or 10 percent of coal generating capacity) to shut down between 2012 and 2016.
However, Brattle has now updated its findings based on recent market conditions and "ongoing environmental policy uncertainty."
The research group came up with two scenarios - one based on lenient environmental control technology and another based on strict policies.
Even under a more lenient approach by the EPA, the reduction of coal generating capacity will be twice as large as previously believed, about 59,000 megawatts.
But if the EPA takes a stricter approach, 77,000 megawatts of generation capacity will likely disappear rather than retrofit to meet tougher environmental standards.
The shortsighted view - the one held by the anti-coal crowd - is that a dirtier energy source will be replaced by cheaper natural gas and alternatives.
But natural gas prices, which are now low, aren't going to stay there.
Natural gas prices are highly volatile. As demand increases, prices will naturally rise.
Additionally, domestic natural gas producers are looking to expand exports.
The Wall Street Journal reports that, "Many big consumers of natural gas are worried currently proposed projects, which could export more than a third of daily production in the continental U.S., would raise natural gas prices," reported the Wall Street Journal.
A thriving economy depends on massive amounts of energy that are relatively cheap and readily available. A true all-of-the-above approach is best because it takes advantage of the country's remarkable bounty of coal and natural gas.
The Obama administration and its EPA are openly hostile to the country's primary energy source of coal, while simultaneously propping up questionable green alternatives with taxpayer dollars.
No wonder coal was buoyed by a few kind words from Romney.
-
Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.
Coal miners ask Obama to stop ‘absolute lies’ ( Ohio )
The Herald-Star ^ | October 13, 2012 | CASEY JUNKINS
Posted on October 14, 2012 2:12:57 AM EDT by george76
Coal miners at the American Energy Corp. Century Mine said they want President Barack Obama to stop what they term “the war on coal” – and to stop spreading “mistruths” about them.
Miners gathered Friday afternoon to express their opposition to Obama’s energy and environmental policies, which they believe threaten their jobs. Miner Mitch Miracle read aloud a letter the miners mailed to Obama that outlines some of their concerns.
The miners said Obama’s campaign team is running ads filled with “blatantly false” statements about the miners regarding their participation in Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s August campaign stop at the Century Mine. These ads assert that the miners were forced to attend the event by the mine’s owner, Robert Murray.
“There are numerous false statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event
(Excerpt) Read more at heraldstaronline.com ...
-
Coal miners ask Obama to stop ‘absolute lies’
October 13, 2012
By CASEY JUNKINS - Special to the Herald-Star , The Herald-Star
Save | Comments (8) | Post a comment |
BEALLSVILLE - Coal miners at the American Energy Corp. Century Mine said they want President Barack Obama to stop what they term the war on coal - and to stop spreading mistruths about them.
Miners gathered Friday afternoon to express their opposition to Obamas energy and environmental policies, which they believe threaten their jobs. Miner Mitch Miracle read aloud a letter the miners mailed to Obama that outlines some of their concerns.
The miners said Obamas campaign team is running ads filled with blatantly false statements about the miners regarding their participation in Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romneys August campaign stop at the Century Mine. These ads assert that the miners were forced to attend the event by the mines owner, Robert Murray.
STANDING UP FOR COAL — Mitch Miracle, a coal miner at American Energy Corp. Century Mine near Beallsville, speaks out Friday against what he and his fellow miners call President Barack Obama’s war on coal.
There are numerous false statements and absolute lies concerning our participation in this event, mostly started by a local shock jock radio host, the miners letter to Obama states. Why would you (Obama) lie about the 500 working miners who have signed this letter? We, the employees of the Century Mine would request you immediately stop these false ads.
This summer, Murray Energy Corp., parent company of the Beallsville mine, cut or relocated 56 workers with the closure of the Red Bird West mine near Brilliant. Murray also cut 29 mining jobs from The Ohio Valley Coal Co.s Powhatan No. 6 Mine. All of this was done, Robert Murray said, because of Obamas war on coal.
Murray then hosted the August Romney campaign stop in Beallsville, during which many miners appeared behind Romney as the former Massachusetts governor spoke about the need to protect coal mining jobs. In response to the assertion some have made about the miners being forced to appear with Romney, the miners made the following points on Friday:
As for anyone who claims the miners were forced to attend, those on-site Friday said these assertions probably came from discharged or disgruntled former employees.
Despite the miners Friday statements, Ohio Democrats have requested a federal investigation regarding Murrays campaign contributions and practices.
-
Obama Administration Moves Forward on Climate Change Without Congress
Forthcoming regulation likely means no new coal-fired power plants will be built in the United States
By Rebekah Metzler
February 22, 2013 RSS Feed Print
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/22/obama-administration-moves-forward-on-climate-change-without-congress
Demonstrators march in Los Angeles, Calif., to call on President Obama to take action on the environment, Feb. 17, 2013.
President Barack Obama is tired of waiting for Congress to move on legislation to reduce carbon emissions, and his administration is poised to move forward on actions to do just that—including a move that will effectively eliminate the possibility of any new coal plant opening in the United States, experts say.
"We can choose to believe that Superstorm Sandy, and the most severe drought in decades, and the worst wildfires some states have ever seen were all just a freak coincidence," Obama said during his State of the Union address. "Or we can choose to believe in the overwhelming judgment of science—and act before it's too late."
[ENJOY: Political Cartoons About Global Warming]
Climate change has been a controversial public policy issue in recent years, as many conservative Republicans have denied a relationship between carbon emissions and incremental increases in temperatures, which many scientists link to increasingly severe weather events.
Democrats, on the other hand, have used the evidence to push for regulations limiting carbon emissions. In 2009, the Democratically controlled House of Representatives passed landmark climate-change legislation but the Senate, also controlled by Democrats, declined to take up the measure heading into the 2010 elections.
Now, with Republicans in control of the House, it's even more unlikely Congress will act on any bill that would accomplish the president's goals, so the president indicated he's moving forward on his own.
[REPORT: Flowers Blooming Historically Early]
"If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will," he said. "I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."
But what can Obama do?
Industry insiders, lobbyists, and experts say the president has already gotten the ball rolling on a host of administrative actions that he was likely alluding to in his speech.
James McGarry, a policy analyst at the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, a regional group that supports climate change legislation, says that thanks to a 2007 Supreme Court decision forcing the Environmental Protection Agency to move ahead with regulating carbon dioxide and some other gases as pollutants, the Obama administration is already working unilaterally to curb emissions but their biggest moves to date are imminent.
[STUDY: World Coffee Supply Threatened By Climate Change]
"It's sort of a two-step process," McGarry says. "So the EPA, probably in the next few weeks, is probably going to set standards that any new power plant that's built in the U.S. has to achieve a certain carbon dioxide emissions rate per unit of energy produced."
Those likely standards—limiting emissions to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour—virtually eliminate the likelihood new coal-fired power plants will be built.
"That's huge, because just to look at the numbers, coal fired power plants emit around 2,200 pounds per megawatt hour where a new gas-fired, natural gas power plant is about 900 pounds per megawatt hour," McGarry says. "So in order for any new coal to be built in the U.S. in 2013-2014, they would have to have some sort of carbon-capture technology, which at the moment is economically unrealistic."
[WORLD BANK: Global Warming Could Devastate Economy]
Alisha Johnson, spokeswoman for the EPA, says the agency is working to identify all the options it has available to reduce pollution and transition to sustainable energy sources. She also confirmed the EPA is moving on the rule regulating new power plant emissions.
-
Obama’s Energy nominee: We need carbon tax to double or triple energy cost
Examiner ^ | 3/25/13 | Joel Gehrke
Posted on Monday, March 25, 2013 5:34:34 PM by Nachum
President Obama’s Energy secretary nominee regards a carbon tax as one of the simplest ways to move the energy industry towards clean technologies, though he notes that government would have to come up with a plan to mitigate the burden this tax places on poor people, who would pay the most.
“Ultimately, it has to be cheaper to capture and store it than to release it and pay a price,” MIT professor and Energy nominee Ernest Moniz told the Switch Energy Project in an interview last year. “If we start really squeezing down on carbon dioxide over the next few decades, well, that could double; it could eventually triple. I think inevitably if we squeeze down on carbon, we squeeze up on the cost, it brings along with it a push toward efficiency; it brings along with it a push towards clean technologies in a conventional pollution sense; it brings along with it a push towards security. Because after all, the security issues revolve around carbon bearing fuels.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
-
http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/25/obamas-energy-secretary-nominee-called-for-doubling-or-tripling-energy-costs-with-carbon-tax-to-push-u-s-towards-green-energy
Look at this freak
-
Obama Set To Announce Historic Climate Change Plan, With New Regulation Of Power Plants
Josh Lederman, AP Jun. 25, 2013, 7:10 AM 798 17
WASHINGTON (AP) — Taking climate change efforts into his own hands, President Barack Obama is proposing sweeping steps to limit heat-trapping pollution from coal-fired power plants and to boost renewable energy production on federal property.
Obama, in a speech Tuesday at Georgetown University, was to announce he's issuing a presidential memorandum to launch the first-ever federal regulations on carbon dioxide emitted by existing power plants, moving to curb the gases blamed for global warming despite adamant opposition from Republicans and some energy producers.
The far-reaching plan marks Obama's most prominent effort yet to deliver on a major priority he laid out in his first presidential campaign and recommitted to at the start of his second term: to fight climate change in the U.S. and abroad and prepare American communities for its effects. Environmental activists have been irked that Obama's high-minded goals never materialized into a comprehensive plan.
By expanding permitting on public lands, Obama hopes to generate enough electricity from renewable energy projects such as wind and solar to power the equivalent of 6 million homes by 2020, effectively doubling the electric capacity federal lands now produce, senior administration officials said. He'll also set a goal to install 100 megawatts of energy-producing capacity at federal housing projects by the end of the decade.
Obama also was to announce $8 billion in federal loan guarantees to spur investment in technologies that can keep carbon dioxide produced by power plants from being released into the atmosphere.
"While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we have a moral obligation to act on behalf of future generations," the White House said in a statement, arguing that climate change is no longer a distant threat — the 12 hottest years on record all occurred in the past 15 years.
The linchpin of Obama's plan involves new and existing power plants. Forty percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, and one-third of greenhouse gases overall, come from electric power plants, according to the federal Energy Information Administration. The Obama administration already has proposed controls on new plants, but those controls have been delayed and not yet finalized. Tuesday's announcement would be the first public confirmation that Obama plans to extend carbon controls to existing plants.
"The country is facing a threat; the president is facing facts," said Dan Lashof of the Natural Resources Defense Council, praising Obama for taking aim at power plants. "Reducing that pollution is the most important step we can take as a nation to stand up to climate change."
A spokesman for major power companies said the industry long has understood the importance of addressing climate change and has been working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for two decades. The industry will consider whether new climate change policies and regulations "mesh" with its ongoing transition to a cleaner generating fleet and an enhanced electric grid, said Tom Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute, a group that represents power companies.
Even before Obama spoke, reaction from Republicans was swift and dismissive, reflecting the opposition to climate legislation on Capitol Hill that prompted a frustrated Obama to sidestep lawmakers and take action himself. Don Stewart, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said imposing carbon rules on power plants amounts to a national energy tax.
"Will the president explain the massive costs to American jobs? Will the president explain how low-income Americans would pay for their new, higher utility bills?" Stewart said.
Senior administration officials, who weren't authorized to comment by name and requested anonymity, said Obama will set a timeline for putting new power plant controls in place. But he won't issue detailed emission targets or specifics. Instead, the president will launch a process in which the Environmental Protection Agency will work with states to develop specific plans to rein in carbon emissions, with flexibility for each state's circumstances.
Obama also will announce more aggressive steps to increase efficiency for appliances such as refrigerators and lamps, the White House said, adding that stricter standards could reduce carbon pollution by more than 3 billion tons between now and 2030 — the equivalent of a half-year's worth of carbon pollution from power plants. Another component of Obama's proposal will involve ramping up hydropower production from existing dams.
Obama raised climate change as a key second-term issue in his inaugural address in January, but has offered few details since. In his February State of the Union, he issued an ultimatum to lawmakers: "If Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will."
"His view reflects reality," White House spokesman Jay Carney said Monday. "We've seen Congress attempt to deal with this issue, and fail to."
Framing Obama's efforts as part of a broader, global movement, the White House said the U.S. can play a leading role in persuading other nations to join in efforts to slow the warming of the planet.
Obama is calling for an end to U.S. support for public financing for new coal-fired plants overseas, officials said, but will exempt plants in the poorest nations as long as the cleanest technology available in those countries is being used. He's also pledging to work with major polluting countries like China and India to curb emissions, building on an agreement Obama struck recently with China's leader to phase out hydrofluorocarbons, potent greenhouse gases used in air conditions and refrigerators.
Another of Obama's goals — to prepare communities for the inevitable effects of climate change — appears to be more aspiration than concrete plan. Community leaders and environmental activists say that what cities and states need to prepare for flooding and higher temperatures is money — something Obama is hard-pressed to provide without Congress' go-ahead.
Sidestepping Congress by using executive action doesn't guarantee Obama smooth sailing. Lawmakers could introduce legislation to thwart Obama's efforts. And the rules for existing power plants will almost certainly face legal challenges in court.
___
Follow Matthew Daly on Twitter: https://twitter.com/MatthewDalyWDC
Follow Josh Lederman on Twitter: https://twitter.com/joshledermanAP
Copyright (2013) Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-set-to-announce-historic-climate-change-plan-with-new-regulation-of-power-plants-2013-6#ixzz2XESg25Ol
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/electricity-prices-highest-record-may
>:(
-
http://washingtonexaminer.com/energy-official-electricity-prices-to-soar-80-percent-thanks-to-epa-coal-regulations/article/2543871
You were all warned many many many times.
-
http://nypost.com/2014/05/21/your-electric-bill-will-skyrocket-with-new-energy-regulation
F you democrat thugs
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-28/chamber-study-predicts-obama-climate-rule-will-kill-jobs.html
You voted for it, F you!
-
http://nypost.com/2014/05/21/your-electric-bill-will-skyrocket-with-new-energy-regulation
As predicted. You vote for communists - eat shit
-
They predicted it would bankrupt the coal industry and costs would sky rocket?
That was 3 years ago when this thread started Must be happening when we turn communist.
My electric bill is about 50% less than it was 2 years ago lol.
Got any more predictions?
PS: Coal must go!
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/29/us/politics/obama-to-offer-rules-to-sharply-curb-power-plants-carbon-emissions.html
-
Blah blah blah. Isnt the industry supposed to be bankrupt by now? Are we all supposed to be paying %200 more for energy?
Is this another bull shit prediction? Arent we suppose to be a communist country by now?
-
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-24/coal-bankruptcies-loom-on-pain-from-cheap-gas-new-rules.html
:)
-
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/average-price-electricity-climbs-all-time-record
>:(
-
New EPA Regulations Will Raise Electricity Rates by 27 to 50 Percent
American Legislator ^ | 11-20-14 | John Eick
Posted on 11/20/2014 4:58:01 PM by ThethoughtsofGreg
Ever since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Clean Power Plan proposal this past June, a number of analyses have been conducted to try and determine the total cost of the regulation to electricity consumers. A report released this morning by Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA), however, goes a step further.
In addition to the Clean Power Plan, EPA has recently finalized, proposed, or will soon propose a slew of environmental regulations affecting the electric power sector. These include new National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and particulate matter, the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to address interstate transport of air pollution, Mercury and Air Toxic Standards (MATS), and regional haze regulations intended to reduce regional haze and improve visibility in national parks.
These regulations have a cumulative effect of imposing considerable financial burdens on the electric power sector and, ultimately, consumers. Similarly, natural gas prices can also be expected to rise as a result of the increased demand created by the Clean Power Plan. Precisely how much electricity and gas prices will increase is exactly what EVA sought to determine.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanlegislator.org ...
-
He is trying to collapse the nation, why is it so hard for others to grasp?
So he can claim capitalism failed and then usher in a more radical socialist government as the "solution". Something the American people would never have allowed before the chaos.
-
He is a communist tyrant
-
http://dailycaller.com/2014/11/21/report-epa-regulations-to-raise-power-costs-37-percent-by-2020/
-
[FLASHBACK] Barack Obama’s Seven-dollar-a-gallon Gas Ambitions (they've been trying to get us here for a while)
thenewamerican.com ^ | 5/9/11 | Selwyn Duke
Posted on 3/8/2022, 2:51:05 PM
“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” said Steven Chu — the man Barack Obama would ultimately tap to be energy secretary — in September 2008. He was explaining to The Wall Street Journal that higher energy prices are the centerpiece of the Left’s energy overhaul. Well, I don’t know if they’ve figured out the Euro-boost yet, but we are halfway to Vienna.
Now, while I’m sure Barack Obama would love it if gas prices declined until November 6, 2012, there’s every reason to believe he shares Chu’s sentiments. And if the fact that he hired such a man in the first place isn’t enough for you, consider his campaign-trail implication that he wouldn’t have a problem with four-dollar-a-gallon gas (hey, it won’t cramp his lifestyle. Golf, anyone?). Consider also that he’s quite willing to subordinate the satisfying of energy needs to symbolic environmental deeds. For example, in 2008, he told the San Francisco Chronicle that his policies would bankrupt the traditional coal industry and said “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket[emphasis added].” It’s amazing what comes out of his mouth — even on the campaign trail — off Teleprompter.
Given this attitude, it’s not surprising that oil rigs, denied permits to drill by the Obama administration, have been leaving the Gulf of Mexico for foreign shores. And don’t expect to see them back anytime soon, either. After all, moving a Walmart-size rig is no small feat, and not all countries have a national death wish that causes the afflicted to kill the golden goose like ghetto criminals who ensure that businesses will leave their neighborhoods.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...