EPA looking to stall on those new power plant regulations?

posted at 5:11 pm on March 15, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

The Obama EPA has made it their especial mission to bring about the demise of the coal industry post-haste, and last year, they announced that they were getting to work writing the first-ever regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants — even though the industry protested that such rules would “make it impossible to build any new coal-fueled power plants and could cause the premature closure of many more coal-fueled power plants operating today” (I mean, that’s pretty much the whole point here).

The EPA was all excited about pushing the new rules out by April, and radical environmentalist groups couldn’t have been more pleased with the endeavor — but most unusually, it sounds like the eco-zealots at the EPA may have gotten ahead of themselves yet again.

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is leaning toward holding off on the proposal for some revisions, possibly to give themselves time to better insulate the rules against the inevitable legal challenges, and/or because the rules might even be too strict for even new natural gas plants. Oops:

Frank O’Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said the EPA “set the gold standard” when it proposed requiring any new power plant emit no more CO2 than an average new U.S. gas plant.

“The question is whether this weakens it,” O’Donnell said of a possible revision. “It’s hard to see it strengthening it.”

Jeffrey Holmstead, a partner at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani who represents several utilities, said the agency is responding to industry’s concerns that even some new natural gas plants would not be able to meet the proposed standard.

“My sense is they realize the path that started down doesn’t work,” said Holmstead, who headed EPA’s air and radiation office under George W. Bush. “This proposal is so completely different from anything they’ve done before they’ve created a problem for themselves.” …

“They need to set a standard that will hold up in court, or otherwise it jeopardizes the entire idea of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from coal-fired power plants,” O’Donnell said.

The EPA may have jumped the gun in their eagerness to pass still more regulations that they view as landmark achievements? It’s shocking, I know, but the independent and out-of-control federal agency has suffered a number of legal setbacks in their recent quest to forcibly transform America’s energy sector (even if they have to tank the darn economy to do it, by golly!). I’m sure they really want to get this one right, you know?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Go ahead, Obama, let the regulations go through. You will just blame the inevitable blackouts on the Republicans anyhow.

Decoski on March 15, 2013 at 5:14 PM

I feel such disgust for this administration. May they all burn in a hell fueled by coal.

NapaConservative on March 15, 2013 at 5:19 PM

Well, now if Obamacare starts the job killing juggernaut, he has the sequester to blame.

IlikedAUH2O on March 15, 2013 at 5:22 PM

I can assure everybody that if America experienced only 10% of the electricity daily rolling blackouts in Baghdad, the donkey party would be the minority party for 50 years.

Bring it, whackos. I dare you.

platypus on March 15, 2013 at 5:23 PM

America: where every new plant is better than average.

Fenris on March 15, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Operation: “Necessarily Skyrocket”
FORWARD!

kooly on March 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM

platypus on March 15, 2013 at 5:23 PM

You mean like Benghazi and the unemployment rate cost them THE ELECTION in 2012?

And what happened in the Super Bowl? That was weird..and ignored.

IlikedAUH2O on March 15, 2013 at 5:32 PM

First there was just one ant, far away from his bed and home.

Inside the EAU/Mike Mann man made global warming con-game of tax CO2 for the redistribution effort.

Same old e-mail fail, “no one will see this e-mail”.

Climate Gate No. 1

Climate Gate No. 2.

Now Climate Gate No. 3.

Lots of little ants legging it on No. 1 and No. 2 many truths uncovered, the msm blind as a bat paid off by the incest lust.

Now Climate Gate No. 3

12 Bigger Ants, aka Ants with keys to the e-mail kingdom of lies and fraud.

Ya, know us Blogger Ants,,,

http://www.wattsupwiththat.com

Review ongoing, reading, searching, compiling, compare and contrast, more each day.

The CO2 cult of Hockey Stick on full alert.

Lawyers now with retainers.

University Boards of Regents with meetings set for talks.

The CO2 cult a bit unnerved but one leader forges ahead.

Obama will spend, he will build on the fake foundations of tree rings, it is all he has and time awaits no commie long.

Good thing Hot Air Blog is just about the middle ground.

Would not be good to be known for being in one of the real fights.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on March 15, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Insanity. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Jesus or gay marriage so this thread will be woefully unread.

antisense on March 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Stalling is almost as effective from the standpoint of stifling carbon energy development as the new regs will be. No one is going forward with any phase of plant development until they know what the new standards will be.

“Under my plan … electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

novaculus on March 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM

The EPA are poster children for those who need to find themselves getting personally acquainted with Stout Hemp Rope and Streetlamps… (Batteries not included, your mileage may vary, and some assembly required)…

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Insanity. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Jesus or gay marriage so this thread will be woefully unread.

antisense on March 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Or assault weapons, so you are correct, it will be woefully under-read, just not a sexy enough topic.

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Why would they want to restrict CO2 emissions? Their goal is and always has been to generate a new source of income:

Waxman, Whitehouse, Blumenauer, and Schatz Release Carbon Price Discussion Draft
To quote from the discussion draft on a carbon tax linked above:

The legislation would establish the polluter pays principle for dangerous carbon pollution, requiring large emitters to pay for the pollution they emit.

The “discussion draft” released today contains a new and straightforward approach to putting a price on carbon pollution. The nation’s largest polluters would have to pay a fee for each ton of pollution they release. The legislation assigns responsibility for the assessment and collection of the carbon fees based upon the expertise that has already been developed by EPA and the Treasury Department. Under the discussion draft, EPA’s database of reported emissions would determine the amount of pollution subject to the fee. The Treasury Department would be responsible for the collection and handling of the fees.

They aren’t talking insignificant government revenues either.

The Members and Senators are soliciting comments on the discussion draft from stakeholders and the public. Although comments on any aspect of the draft are welcome, the Lawmakers are specifically requesting feedback on the following questions:

1. What is the appropriate price per ton for polluters to pay? The draft contains alternative prices of $15, $25, and $35 per ton for discussion purposes.

2. How much should the price per ton increase on an annual basis? The draft contains a range of increases from 2% to 8% per year for discussion purposes.

3. What are the best ways to return the revenue to the American people? The discussion draft proposes putting the revenue toward the following goals, and solicits comments on how to best accomplish each: (1) mitigating energy costs for consumers, especially low-income consumers; (2) reducing the Federal deficit; (3) protecting jobs of workers at trade-vulnerable, energy intensive industries; (4) reducing the tax liability for individuals and businesses; and (5) investing in other activities to reduce carbon pollution and its effects.

4. How should the carbon fee program interact with state programs that address carbon pollution?

All comments are welcome and can be submitted by email to cutcarbon@mail.house.gov. The Lawmakers are requesting that comments be submitted no later than April 12, 2013.

This is and always has been about redistribution of wealth.

The average coal fire power plant in the US emits 3,500,000 tons of CO2 annually.

At the low end, that means an additional $50,000,000 in costs annually…per power plant. Power plants have the luxury of passing those costs directly to their consumers through higher electricity rates.

I am just guessing that the Treasury will be passing out checks to low income people in excess of the increase in their electric bill, and wealthy individuals will see their electric bill increase in excess of their check from the treasury.

Manufacturers based in the US who also emit CO2 will be doubly hit and probably be forced to close up shop or move overseas. They get the increased electricity rate in addition to the fee on their emissions. The problem is, unlike utilities, they face competition from imports and therefore cannot simply raise their prices.

I do not oppose regulation of greenhouse gases based on a belief/non-belief of global warming. I oppose regulation of greenhouse gases because every proposal is masked from its true intention, wealth redistribution.

At this point I don’t care if global warming is real or not, and neither do the EPA or the Democrats in Washington.

weaselyone on March 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Insanity. Unfortunately, there is no mention of Jesus or gay marriage so this thread will be woefully unread.

antisense on March 15, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Or assault weapons, so you are correct, it will be woefully under-read, just not a sexy enough topic.

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 5:53 PM

You should check out the Rob Portman thread, it’s hilarious. alchemist is outdoing JetBoy for pure denial – he literally may as well post “LALALA I CAN’T HEAR U!” and Charlie Horse is getting his whiny pervert butt kicked.

MelonCollie on March 15, 2013 at 6:07 PM

At this point I don’t care if global warming is real or not, and neither do the EPA or the Democrats in Washington.

weaselyone on March 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Well I for one do care, Global Warming has never ever been anything other than a Ponzi scheme, a scam, a con, and those who instigated it and who propagate it, along with those who supported it or otherwise gave it cover deserve to join Bernie Madoff in prison.

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Frank O’Donnell, president of the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said the EPA “set the gold standard” when it proposed requiring any new power plant emit no more CO2 than an average new U.S. gas plant.

Hey, since this is their idea of a metric; lets try something like it.

ALL power plants must produce less CO2 than average or be shut down… the first year we’ll shut down the worst polluters… but we’ll have a new average. That’s the trick that the low information voters will miss.

The 2nd year we’ll have shut down 3/4 of all power plants in the US. We can finally END ELECTRICITY FOREVER in the nation in a handful of years.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

What? That isn’t the goal? Are you sure? That really looks like the goal.

gekkobear on March 15, 2013 at 6:41 PM

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Or maybe some hemp and streetlamps are in order.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 6:42 PM

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Or maybe some hemp and streetlamps are in order.

chemman on March 15, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Indeed, perhaps the French Revolution wasn’t as bad as we have been taught all these years.

SWalker on March 15, 2013 at 6:56 PM

If power rates skyrocket and the economy tanks, not even Michael Mann will be able to HIDE THE DECLINE!

Marcola on March 15, 2013 at 7:20 PM

Operation: “Necessarily Skyrocket”
FORWARD!

kooly on March 15, 2013 at 5:30 PM

…lol…haven’t seen you before?…keep coming back here!

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2013 at 7:27 PM

…is that a picture of the Vatican…sent back by Joe Biden?

KOOLAID2 on March 15, 2013 at 7:40 PM

The Washington Post reports that the Obama administration is leaning toward holding off on the proposal for some revisions, possibly to give themselves time to better insulate the rules against the inevitable legal challenges, and/or because the rules might even be too strict for even new natural gas plants. Oops:

“Oops”, my a**.

The deep-ecos hate LNG as badly as they do coal, oil, nuclear, or hydro power. Natural gas drilling is the reason for “fracking” after all, in their minds, and besides, all fossil fuels and energy sources other than Holy Wind and Holy Sun are Evil Incarnate, in their “enlightened” worldview.

This is about as “accidental” as the CO and NY “assault weapon” bans being written to ban practically any detachable magazine irrespective of capacity. It’s the old “we didn’t mean to do that, but it’s done, and we’re not going to change it to please you reactionary haters of (fill in the blank)” gambit.

Nothing in this Administration, or the Democratic-controlled part of the government, at any level, happens by “accident”. “Accidents” would work to our advantage at some point, based on the law of averages. Since all the “accidents” benefit the agenda of the left, the only logical conclusion is that they are about as “accidental” as one of the President’s golf outings.

The fact that they keep calling them “accidents”, and expecting us to believe it, speaks volumes for their utter contempt, and hatred, for the rest of our civilization. And for their own overweening arrogance.

clear ether

eon

eon on March 15, 2013 at 9:41 PM

Now, if only we could stop the further destruction of the Great American Appliance: Stop the War on Dishwashers

PattyJ on March 15, 2013 at 10:02 PM