Article Reprinted from September 20, 2014 CFACT with proviso permission
http://www.cfact.org/2014/09/20/epas-clean-power-plan-rules-meet-resistance-but/
Blackouts ahead if EPA rules shut down
more power plants
The EPA is more concerned with what sounds good than
what actually works.
September 20, 2014 by Marita
Noon
In this hyper-partisan environment, it is good to
know that a majority of Senators can still agree on an issue. When such a rare moment
happens, the rest of us should pay attention, as it is probably something very
important.
On
September 11, 53 Senators (43 Republicans and 10 Democrats) signed a letter to
Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA),
begging for a 60-day extension of the comment period for the “Carbon
Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Generating
Units”—also known as the Clean Power Plan (CPP). The original 120-day comment
period—which is already longer than the traditional 60-day comment period—is
coming to a close within the next 30 days (October 16).
Regarding the EPA’s new plan, the letter calls the
coordination needed between multiple state agencies, public utility
commissions, regional transmission organizations, and transmission and
reliability experts: “Unprecedented, extraordinary, and extremely time
consuming.” The Senators ask for more time so that states and stakeholders can
“fully analyze and assess the sweeping impacts that the proposal will have on
our nation’s energy system.” It also points out: “The EPA proposal provides no
mechanism for adjusting the state emission rate targets once they are
adopted”—which makes it imperative that the states can fully “digest” the rule,
review the 600 supporting documents, and collect the data and justification for
the states’ responses.
It is not just the majority of Senators who have
concerns about the EPA’s proposed rule. A diverse and growing coalition, including
the Exotic Wildlife Association, the Foundry Association of Michigan,
California Cotton Growers Association, Texas Aggregates and Concrete
Association, The Fertilizer Institute, Georgia Railroad Association, Nebraska
Farm Bureau Federation, electric utilities and co-ops, and city and state
Chambers of Commerce from coast-to-coast, has sprung up in opposition to the
plan. Yet most people are unaware of the potential impacts or of the pending
deadline for public comment.
I have written on the CPP twice in the past few
months—originally when
it was first announced on June 2, and then after
I gave testimony in Atlanta at one of the EPA’s four scheduled “listening
sessions.” Upon release, we didn’t really know much—after all, it is, as the
Senators’ letter explains, complex and sweeping. But as more and more
information is coming out, we see that the impact to the economy and U.S.
energy security will be devastating.
Despite my efforts to spread the word—with my second
column on the topic being one of my most popular ever — I find that the CPP
isn’t even on the radar of the politically engaged (let alone the average
person). Because this is an issue of utmost importance, I am, once again,
bringing it to the attention of my readers with the hope that you will share it
with everyone you know. At this point, we don’t know if the EPA will extend the
comment period, so please take time now to get your
comments in. The Hill reports:
“Adding 60 days to the comment period could make it harder for the EPA to
finalize the rule by June 2015, as President Obama has ordered.”
I’ve written this week’s column with the specific
intent of giving you verbiage that you can simply cut and paste into the comment
form.
The CPP will radically alter the way electricity is
generated, transmitted, distributed, and used in America—all with dramatic cost
impacts to the consumer. It is based on the discredited theory that
climate change is a crisis caused by the use of fossil fuels emitting carbon
dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It aims to reduce overall CO2 emissions
by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. The combination of the CPP and previous
regulation will shut down more than 40% of coal-fueled generation—representing
10% of all electricity-generation capacity—within the next 6 years.
What will this forced, premature elimination of
America’s electric capacity do?
The proposed EPA plan will seriously
threaten America’s electric reliability.
Unless the EPA backs down on its harsh regulations
and coal-fueled power plants get a reprieve, blackouts are almost guaranteed—especially
in light of the projected cold winter. About the 2014 “polar vortex”
that crippled
the U.S., Alaska Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, at an April
Senate hearing on grid reliability, stated:
“Eighty-nine percent of the coal electricity capacity that is due to go offline
was utilized as that backup to meet the demand this winter.”
Murkowski’s comments were referencing coal-fueled
power plants that are already due to be shut down based on regulations from
5 years ago, before the proposed CPP additionally reduces supply.
Affirming Murkowski’s comments, Nicholas Akins, president and CEO of
Ohio-based American Electric Power Company Inc., sees the 2014 near crisis as a
warning sign. At that same hearing he said: “The weather events
experienced this winter provided an early warning about serious issues with
electric supply and reliability. This country did not just dodge a bullet—we
dodged a cannonball.”
And, Federal Energy Regulatory Commissioner Philip
Moeller said: “The country is undergoing an unprecedented energy shift in a
very short time frame.” And added: “Grid operators in the Midwest are
struggling to gauge whether they will have sufficient capacity to handle peak
weather during the next 5 years.” While these comments are about the 2014
severe cold, Texas experienced a similar scare in
2011, when a protracted heat wave resulted in razor-thin reserve electric
capacity margins.
A Reuters report titled: “Heat waves pushes Texas
power grid into red zone,” stated:
“Texas has the most wind power in the country, but the wind does not blow
during the summer.” Just a few months earlier, Texas ice storms forced rolling
blackouts for hours because electric supplies dropped below demand.” All of
these reports are before the projected closure of
an additional 75 megawatts of coal-fueled electricity generation due to the new
regulations. If McCarthy was serious when, prior to the release of the proposed
regulations, she stated:
“Nothing we do can threaten reliability,” she’d withdraw this plan, as it will
do just that.
The proposed EPA plan will chase away
more American industry
While the CPP appears to be about forcing the power
sector into reducing CO2 emissions, there are spillover impacts of higher
electricity rates on overall economic activity—especially energy-intensive
industries such as steel, manufacturing, and chemicals. America’s abundance of
affordable, reliable energy provides businesses with a critical operating
advantage in today’s intensely competitive global economy. The EPA’s proposal
will reduce America’s advantage, as it’s acknowledged that the proposed
regulations will raise electricity rates in the contiguous U.S. by 5.9%
to 6.5% in 2020.
Europe, and especially Germany, is threatened by
an industry
exodus due to its higher energy costs that have been created by its
move to increase Green energy. Germany’s pharmaceutical and chemical giant
Bayer is already making significant investment in its Chinese manufacturing
operations, with expansion also taking place in Brazil and India. If industry
continues to leave the U.S., the CPP will have the opposite effect. Emissions
will increase as companies move to countries with lower labor costs, cheaper
energy, and lax environmental policies. An additional unintended consequence
will be more jobs lost in manufacturing.
The proposed EPA plan will kill hundreds
of thousands of jobs
In late July, the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) International President Edwin D. Hill
said: “If these rules are implemented as written, dozens of coal plants
will shut down and with no plans to replace them, tens of thousands of jobs
will be lost and global carbon emissions will rise anyway.” Investor’s
Business Daily reports:
“The IBEW has now joined the United Mine Workers of America, the Boilermakers,
and several other unions opposed to the new anti-carbon rules.”
The United Mine Workers of America has estimated that
the rule will result in 187,000 direct and indirect job losses in the utility,
rail, and coal industries in 2020 and cumulative wage and benefit losses from
these sectors of $208 billion between 2015 and 2035. The EPA rules hitting
industry in rapid succession create uncertainty—and,
as we’ve seen with Obamacare—uncertainty thwarts
investment and hiring. The same industries that will be taking the regulatory
hit from the CPP, are expecting additional impacts from the follow-on rules
that are yet to be promulgated. No wonder the economy is sluggish and the jobs
picture is bleak.
The proposed EPA plan will cause harsh
economic consequences while having virtually no impact on the reported goal of
stopping global climate change.
From increased energy costs to job losses, the CPP
will damage the economy. A statement from
the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers on the EPA proposal, points
out: “estimates regarding the damage to jobs and the economy created by poorly
planned climate regulations have consistently been shown to be true in
comparison to the overly optimistic predictions made by the EPA.” Perhaps these
economic consequences would be worth it, if they actually did anything to
really reduce CO2 emissions—assuming what humans breathe out and plants
breathe in is actually the cause of global warming. But even the EPA
acknowledges that the CPP is less about reductions and more about being a global
leader to “prompt and leverage international decisions and action.”
In Hillary Clinton’s September 4th speech at
Senator Harry Reid’s National Clean Energy Summit, she stated that the U.S.
needs to lead other countries in green energy and that we need to show the
world we are committed. Yet, the U.S., which did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol,
is the first country
to actually reduce carbon dioxide emissions and meet the Kyoto requirements. We
are already a leader, but the other countries aren’t following—instead they are
abandoning the sinking green ship and Germany, which claims to still be
committed to the green ideology, is actually increasing its
number of coal-fueled power plants and CO2 emissions.
Carbon dioxide emissions from non-Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development countries—such as
China and India—are projected to grow by 9 billion tons per year. The
Partnership for a Better Energy Future reports:
“for every ton of CO2 reduced in 2030 as a result of EPA’s
rule, the rest of the world will have increased emissions by more than 16
tons.” Our reduction in 2030 would offset the equivalent of just 13.5 days of
CO2 emissions from China. The CPP will become the definition of “all pain
and no gain.” Or, as economist Thomas Sowell calls it: “replacing what
worked with what sounded good.”
The EPA’s October 16 deadline will be upon
us before you know it. Take a few minutes now to send them your comments.
Pick any of the above suggestions, customize them as you please, and send them
on to the EPA. For America to grow, we need energy that is effective,
efficient, and economical, rather than that which is threatened by the EPA’s
flood of excessive and burdensome regulations.
About the Author: Marita Noon
CFACT policy analyst Marita Noon is the author of Energy
Freedom.,
No comments:
Post a Comment