Category Archives for Policy
Ed note: This article was originally published in Issue 2, 2015 of American Coal Magazine.
By: William Yeatman, CEI
On August 3rd, President Obama announced his administration’s signature global warming policy, known as the Clean Power Plan. In the simplest of terms, the Clean Power Plan empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to centrally plan the electric industry.
Don’t take my word for it! Top EPA political appointees have been candid about how the Clean Power Plan’s epochal purpose is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by “transitioning” all electricity generation to a “carbon conscious economy.”
On January 28th, 2016, Jason Hayes, Associate Director of the American Coal Council will join Ryan Flynn, Secretary of Environment and the Natural Resources Trustee, State of New Mexico on the US Energy Panel at the 16th Coaltrans USA conference in Miami, FL to discuss “How reliable will the provision of electricity be following the EPA Clean Power Plan?“
The ACC recognizes the importance of an open discussion of key regulatory issues such as these and welcomes the opportunity to meet and network with fellow energy industry professionals.
More information on this event is available on the Coaltrans website.
(Originally published in Issue 2, 2015 American Coal Magazine, pg. 39)
EPA’s Carbon IRP Process, State Plan Options, and Implications for 2016 State Legislative Sessions
By Raymond L. Gifford, Gregory E. Sopkin and Matthew S. Larson – Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer LLP
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) renovated the final Clean Power Plan rule in August, sparking discussion of changed Building Blocks, new emission targets, state-based and national cap-and-trade, “just say no,” and lots of number-crunching by environmental and utility attorneys ill-equipped to handle such complicated equations. Deep in the 1,500 pages of the final rule is what the final rule means for state policymakers and legislators in upcoming 2016 sessions. Because even EPA concedes that this state legislation will be necessary to implement the final rule in many instances, the upcoming legislative sessions will be crucial for how the rule gets treated in the states.
A new study by Energy Ventures Analysis has found that the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) will add $214 Billion to wholesale electricity prices by 2030. This is the second study this month that has predicted significant new costs for American energy users as a result of the CPP.
Far from being cost neutral or even cost-free, as the Obama administration has tried to claim, the CPP will have massive, nationwide impacts on electricity prices and system reliability. Among this new study’s findings,
- 45 states will face double digit price increases
- 16 states will have price increases of 25% or more
Editor’s Note: This article was originally published in Issue 2, 2015 of American Coal Magazine (pg. 30-32)
Too much, Too fast
By Ken Ditzel and Rob Fisher, FTI Consulting
On November 25, 2014, EPA proposed to strengthen the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for primary and secondary ground-level ozone standards to 65 to 70 ppb from the current standard of 75 ppb set in 2008. The 2008 standard is just now at the beginning stages of implementation planning and far from compliance. Many liken EPA’s proposed actions to “moving the goalposts” before the compliance mechanisms for meeting the 2008 standard are implemented and its health benefits and economic costs are fully understood. Numerous scientists and economists consider the latest proposal to be too much, too fast, or, in other words, it is simply premature.
A new study, published by NERA and available on the AmericasPower.org website is detailing the heavy economic impacts of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan.
New analysis from NERA Economic Consulting shows the Environmental Protection Agency’s power plan comes with a hefty price tag that could approach $300 billion and raise electricity prices in each of the 47 states subject to the new regulation. …
An interesting study was recently published by University of California Davis researcher, Katherine Ingram that questions the impact of the wind industry on bats, and by extension, the agriculture industry. As one email headline linking to a Daily Caller article on this issue noted, wind energy means less bats and more mosquitos.
A new study by University of California Davis researcher Katherine Ingram claims that bats add $3.7 billion to the U.S. agriculture industry through pest control. As it turns out, eating moths, mosquitos and other bugs make bats a big money saver for farmers, especially organic growers, looking to cut down on pesticide use. …
Betsy Monseu’s recently published article in the Electricity Journal is freely available via the link below until September 22nd. We encourage everyone to check it out while it is still available.
Coal is under pressure in the United States, and not the natural kind of pressure involved in its creation from plant material. The pressure coal is under today is of a distinctly unnatural kind, shaped by an increasingly far-reaching and unbalanced regulatory agenda. The energy playing field continues to be tilted away from coal, a primary target of that agenda. Yet coal’s leading position as a critical fuel in the electricity marketplace continues. Though its share of that marketplace has generally been trending down over the past several years, coal remains the largest of any fuel source for electric generation. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts coal to retain the leading position in 2015 as well as over the longer term – including a 34 percent share in 2040.
Classic lines from Luke Popovich’s “Dateline Washington – EPA Down on the MAT” piece in the July 2015 issue of Coal Age.
“Lawmakers did not anticipate … that the nation’s energy grid would one day be transformed by doctrinaire fanatics running an environmental agency that is indifferent to cost, to the law, to congress and to public opinion. That sounds like the old Soviet Politburo, not the U.S. government. …
The words of Justice Scalia in the majority opinion should be inscribed over the portals of the EPA’s headquarters: ‘It is not rational, never mind ‘appropriate,’ to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health benefits.’”