The EPA may finalize a rule today that will essentially ban the construction of any new coal-fired power plants 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.”
Exactly. The president says he believes in “all of the above,” but the truth is that under his regime, oil drilling on federal lands is down. Leasing has slowed down. He scuttled the XL, only to approve 29% of it under political pressure. Now, the EPA is effectively banning coal-fired plants. This will make good on Barack Obama’s pre-election promise regarding how he intends to use the price of energy to force his visions on the nation:
Notice the condescending attitude in that clip. Obama failed to get cap and trade legislation passed even in a Democrat-controlled Congress. The EPA’s rule is obviously an end-around to achieve the same goal outside the legislative process.
The proposal does not cover existing plants, although utility companies have announced that they plan to shut down more than 300 boilers, representing more than 42 gigawatts of electricity generation — nearly 13 percent of the nation’s coal-fired electricity — rather than upgrade them with pollution-control technology.
Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, said the new rule “captures the end of an era” during which coal provided most of the nation’s electricity. It currently generates about 40 percent of U.S. electricity.
Emphasis added. Cutting off one major and reliable source of energy will drive the prices of other sources up. You’ve contracted the supply side of the market. It will also cost jobs: 300 boilers have already shut down in anticipation of this rule. It will, in the short term at least, make energy less plentiful. Had this rule been in place during the Texas heatwave last summer, for instance, it would have resulted in rolling blackouts — it would have killed people at the margins. It may seem like an extreme comparison to make, but Obama’s EPA is essentially creating an energy famine in order to socially engineer the country. In the clip above, Obama spells it out plainly, that that is his goal. He is intentionally waging regulatory war on our own economy, not due to incompetence, but out of malevolence.
He’s doing this while he’s making shady post-election promises to the Russians regarding dropping our missile defenses, by the way.
And behind the Obama energy famine program: Science that looks less and less valid by the day.
Honestly, the sick part about the “necessarily skyrocket” line is his inflection, the way he says it. He uses a “qualifying tone” raising his pitch at the end in a manner more appropriate to if he was saying “won’t necessarily skyrocket” instead of “WILL necessarily skyrocket”, in order to trip up people who weren’t listening to him closely enough. To give them plausible deniability to say “No, that’s not what Obama said.”, because all they heard was his inflection and tone, not his actual words.
He knows how to say what he means, but inflect it in a way that those who wish to believe otherwise can self-delude.
Anyone paying attention knows that Obama wants energy to become unaffordable in the US so that only elites have electricity and fuel at will, and the rest can be made available to foreign nations at our expense.
It’s disgusting.
Can the EPA regulations be undone easily (by executive order?) when the next administration takes over?
I believe so. In fact, iirc Obama could rescind them right now.
Expect Harry Reid to go all Yosemite Sam if they try.
That’s unfair … to Yosemite Sam. He has more gravitas.
I filled up this morning for $3.90 because the price is going to $4.15. As I got back in my car I said, “Thank you, Mister President.”
Since much of what Obama has implemented has been through executive orders of questionable legality, then almost everything destructive he has implemented can be undone through executive fiat as well. No need to involve Congress. The poetic justice of that will be delicious.
The Democratic Congress also used dubious parliamentary maneuvers to pass massive legislation (and no just Obamacare), so, as far as I’m concerned, a GOP Congress — both houses — can “Deem to Rescind” whatever the Democrats passed. Works for me.
Furiously at work to destroy the power of America.
In an election year.
This is strange.
It’s to shore up the base. Obama’s base is weaker than it looks. They aren’t going to swing to the GOP, but they might sit out the election if they feel Obama is going soft on Progressive “values” (such as they are).
Remember, most people are non-technical and don’t follow policy closely. They hear “Obama invests in clean energy” and “Obama protects the environment” and think the first solves the problem of the second.
We have some problems when it comes to the EPA. Assuming a Republican does win … and that may be a problem in itself … Start by reading:
“Special Report Peter Ferrara
Romney’s Pending Sellout on Global Warming”
When you get close to the end of the article you find Romney has some heavy duty Climate Changers among his key campaign advisers. Two of his Mass top Climate advisers are with the Obama Administration. One is in the EPA formulating and pushing the regs. which we justifiably decry here. Then you had an article a while back about retired republicans pushing for Climate Change interventions (read their investments).
Then my understanding is that Gingrich also has a history of dalliances with Global Warming (recall Pelosi couch). Rush said Gingrich was going to include a chapter on Global Warming in a book he was writing, but Rush talked him out of it. So … he may not be the staunchest of warriors against this fraud.
Don’t know where Santorum stands, his lack of Successful Conservative Executive experience, resulted in my not getting to that point in inquiry.
Obama’s “All of the Above” Energy Plan:
A. Oil – not from the US or Canada
B. Coal – meet crushing EPA standards
C. Natural gas – no fracking
D. Nuclear – can’t happen fast enough
F. Water – it’s already in place
F. Wind – Europe does it and greenies like it
G. Solar – my buddies and bundlers like it
H. All of the above
60% of the US electricity supply comes from coal. Coal power is the cheapest form of power and has the most stable price. Without new coal or nuclear generating capacity, there will quickly be a shortage of energy. Solar and wind can’t even keep up with the annual growth in demand, let alone replace coal plants.