EPA Regulations to Shut Down Coal Plants and Raise Energy Prices

How can anyone think this is in any way a good idea with the state of the economy? Any Greenies out there want to defend this?

[TABLE=“class: contentpaneopen”]

Written by Brian Koenig

Monday, 22 August 2011 16:20

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sketching out a regulatory blueprint designed to control pollution levels from coal-fired power plants, and lying under the torrent of new regulations will be mercury, smog, water intake, coal ash, and greenhouse gases.
Over the next 18 months, the EPA will put forth efforts to curb mercury emissions, place limits on smog-forming compounds like sulfur-dioxide, enact new rules for coal-ash waste, and implement new standards to contain greenhouse-gas emissions from oil refineries and power plants. “This year is going to be critical for paving a pathway for reducing carbon-dioxide pollution because of those EPA rules,” suggestedDaniel Weiss of the Center for American Progress. “Assuming, that is, they’re not stopped.”

Industry leaders and congressional members note that the EPA’s new regulations will mount a heavy toll on the coal industry, because they will force coal-fired power plants to install costly new renovations — or, in many cases, shut down altogether.

As the stagnant U.S. economy continues to plague the country, and as regulatory burdens persist, opposition from industry leaders has sprung. The American Legislative Exchange Council and the Edison Electric Institute, an industry representative for investor-owned utilities, have tagged the developing regulations"EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck,"as they claim the new rules will cost utilities up to $129 billion and eliminate one-fifth of coal capacity. The Edison Electric Institute also notedthat the **U.S. government’s regulatory war on coal could retire up to 90,000 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation.

**Another concern is further damage to the very issue President Obama is so determined to reverse — the unemployment rate. According to a Commerce Department analysis, the regulations would costup to 60,000 jobs, a much higher figure than the agency originally purported.

[/TABLE]

EPA Regulations to Shut Down Coal Plants and Raise Energy Prices

This is really going to hurt Obama in swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania where those states have lots of coal.

I see Obama rolled back a smog rule by the EPA but I am sure he did it so that he appears to be more moderate and to capture some votes.

Bet it comes back about the second week of November 2012 regardless of the outcome.

[quote=“tperkins, post:4, topic:31486”]
Bet it comes back about the second week of November 2012 regardless of the outcome.
[/quote]That is a no brainer:biggrin: The way I feel now, I would arrest everyone of those department heads who pushed Obama’s agenda.

Not if they can’t make it stick. If there’s enough opposition to it, they couldn’t get it into effect soon enough before it got reversed. If nothing else, the corporations only need to sue and ask for a delay in implementation, and tie things up until the conservative electee is inaugurated.

This may be about the very EPA regs referenced in the OP:

Obama shelves EPA smog rule in huge defeat for environmental groups
By Ben Geman and Erik Wasson - 09/02/11 10:34 AM ET
The Hill

The White House announced Friday that it is shelving a major planned Environmental Protection Agency regulation that would have tightened smog standards, dealing a huge blow to environmentalists that had pushed the Obama administration to resist industry pressure to abandon the regulation.

In a statement, President Obama said that the rule is being shelved because he is wary of imposing regulatory burdens during the economic recovery.

The White House faced pressure from Republicans to abandon the smog standards. The rule was among 10 regulations that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had singled out for elimination in a recent memo laying out the GOP’s fall jobs campaign.

“This effective ban or restriction on construction and industrial growth for much of America is possibly the most harmful of all the currently anticipated Obama Administration regulations,” Cantor said in the memo.

The office of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called the withdrawal of the rule “a good first step” toward reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, but said there is more to be done.

I hope the Rs are VERY careful with this move. It could be re-spun by the Reelect Obama folks into Mean-Republicans-Greedily-Polluting-the-Evironment. The Rs need to inform the piblic about the needless harm these regs would have done, but informing people isn’t an R strong suit. And the MSM will be aiding and abetting the Obamian re-spin efforts.

Obama said he is shelving it, “For now”. Everything he promises has a hook in it.

Picker…yep…2013 will be a hell of a year if he is re-elected.

It’s like they never heard of PR.

I blame it on the **liberal republicans **who are always afraid of offending the democrats and they don’t seem to realize the dems will NEVER vote for republicans.

.

Why don’t these liberal Republicans just become Democrats since they’re so afraid of offending them.

[quote=“candygirl, post:11, topic:31486”]
Why don’t these liberal Republicans just become Democrats since they’re so afraid of offending them.
[/quote]IDK. Ask Jazzhead.

Makes you wonder if there are plants in the Republican party.

[quote=“candygirl, post:13, topic:31486”]
Makes you wonder if there are plants in the Republican party.
[/quote]There certainly are, especially in the primary elections. That’s why I stongly oppose open primaries. If you want to have a vote in my party’s primary, you need to join the club. If your’re po’d at the party and don’t want to join the club, you don’t get a voice in who my party is running. Go choose the Independant party’s candidate. Or, more directly, go vote in your own democratic party primary.

[quote=“candygirl, post:13, topic:31486”]
Makes you wonder if there are plants in the Republican party.
[/quote]I do not wonder. Since Reagan courted the Blue dogs, anyone who thinks of fiscal responsibility, thinks they are conservative. Liberals are the reason I left the Republicans over 20 years ago. It really amuses me to listen to their diatribe. The only conservative thing about them, is their alleged fiscal attitude.
Now, with the internet political climate, I am quite sure that political plants, are the norm. I will always expose their apparent lies. But, I feel like I am shoveling quicksand.

I’ve always believed that there’s more to being a conservative than just fiscal issues.

[quote=“candygirl, post:16, topic:31486”]
I’ve always believed that there’s more to being a conservative than just fiscal issues.
[/quote]Conservatism is rooted in things that work. Small government, hard work, low taxes, family values, strong defense, anti crime, etc., etc., ad infinitum. I honestly cannot fathom, how anyone who is pro abortion, can call themselves anything but Liberal.

[quote=“Tiny1, post:17, topic:31486”]
Conservatism is rooted in things that work. Small government, hard work, low taxes, family values, strong defense, anti crime, etc., etc., ad infinitum. I honestly cannot fathom, how anyone who is pro abortion, can call themselves anything but Liberal.
[/quote]Very good point. I don’t get it either.

How did this segue down to liberalism and abortion.
Because the EPA being an arm of the global warming fellowship of idiots, and that being a world organization of psuedoscientists who have little standing in the real scientific community, there is this movement to bring down nations and governments to third world levels thereby lockstepping vast populations into socialistic ideologies.
That being said [somewhat tongue in cheek] there IS an energy crisis that is BEING fomented here and abroad by entities who have inflicted their idiotic policies on gullable governments and yes OBAMA being chief among them, thereby stalling the advancing of all energy related technologies. NOW WHO do you think stands to gain the most from this Global destruction???

Let me see if I get this:

We shut down oil drilling

We do not allow logging

We buy up land so it can not be developed

We straggle small businesses

We impose cap and trade

We shut down energy plants

We refuse to allow new energy plants to be built.(tie them up in red tape and court proceedings)

We allow the mass migration of illegals in a shrinking job market

Then we say we are improving both the nation and the economy?

And yet we have those champions of socialism on RO who glory this.Socialism a step toward communism