Category Archives for Regulation
We have all heard the quotes and predictions before, as elected officials plainly stated that under their plans to restrict carbon-based forms of energy, electricity prices would “necessarily skyrocket.”
As this mid-December NY Times article clearly shows, New Englanders are now dealing with the results of those misguided, anti-energy policies, with some residents of the area seeing their monthly energy bills exploding by 110%. The article also relayed warnings from the New England ISO stating that “pipeline constraints (are) severe and … the reliability of the system would ‘continue to be threatened’ ” through the winter.
As the EPA’s anti-coal regulations get nearer to implementation, states that rely on coal for electricity and jobs are bracing for the massive economic and social impacts.
Good comments from Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) on pending EPA regulations.
“We should try to achieve an EPA policy as it relates to Pennsylvania as well as other states that doesn’t put that kind of burden on ratepayers.”
In keeping with the theme of my previous post, How many comments did Sierra Club submit?, the BigGreenRadicals.com blog noticed that the folks at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are also claiming to have submitted 8 million comments to the EPA.
Natural Resource Defense Council (NRDC) executive director Frances Beinecke chimed in to claim on her blog that Americans have filed 8 million comments in favor of the EPA’s efforts to limit carbon emissions.
This Washington Examiner headline and opening paragraph caught my attention today.
More than 1.6 million comments both supporting and opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants were filed before Monday’s deadline.
I was interested because ours was one of those 1.6 million comments that was submitted. However, I was also interested because I had seen the Sierra Club’s Twitter feed earlier today, and they claimed to have submitted over 8 million comments by themselves.
Arch Coal’s December 1st news release is a poignant reminder about the potential for economic, social, and environmental damage locked into the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan. It is well worth it to reprint the majority of this news release here on the Coalblog.
“Already promulgated regulations are expected to drive the shut-down of as much as 20 percent of America’s coal-based fleet, which is the primary source of base-load power generation in the United States,” said Deck S. Slone, Arch’s senior vice president of strategy and public policy. “That’s an unprecedented change to America’s power system in what constitutes the blink of an eye in energy markets – creating enormous potential for market disruptions, supply shortages and rate spikes.”
The West Virginia Coal Association described its comments on the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan today. Among the comments, was the following warning about how the CPP will necessarily impact the affordability and reliability of our nation’s electricity generation system.
“President Obama is mandating a move away from low cost, coal-fired electricity to more expensive alternatives for an initiative that will have little to no impact on global climate change,” Raney said. “When you take into account that more than 400 electric generating units across the country are slated for closure or transition to alternative fuels in the coming years, these rules also severely threaten the stability of America’s power grid.”
The American Thinker has an interesting article on how science could be abused by regulatory agencies and the value of enforcing basic standards of transparency on the “science” driving their various regulations.
On November 19, 2014, the House of Representatives passed HR 4012, the Secret Science Reform Act of 2014. The bill would prohibit the US Environmental Protection Agency from regulations based on “science that is not transparent or reproducible.
The folks at junkscience.com don’t pull any punches in their review of the EPA’s just proposed ground level ozone standards, which they refer to as
a combination of arrogance, lack of science and wishful thinking. On 11/26/14, EPA announced its intent to reduce the ozone NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standard) to 65-70 ppbv. The agency also will take comments on reducing the NAAQS to 60 ppbv. The current standard is 75 ppbv. …
There was an interesting article published in The Hill yesterday, which quotes EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy on the issue of election-based changes in the Senate. Her comments indicate an overweening sense of confidence that public and presidential support will be more than sufficient to stop any attempts to limit EPA actions by the newly elected Republican majority in the Senate and the returning majority in the House.