EPA's Clean Power Act : Seek And Destory

The EPA is the most dangerous agency today that every existed as a threat to the national well being and certainty a threat to our national security. That one agency could have the unelected power to change how the entire country lives their lives is criminal beyond the pale. That one unelected person can decide that the entire coal industry is not a necessity for energy production when the country gets more then 40% of it energy from that industry.

That one unelected and appointed person can decided the fate of an entire industry strictly because it doesn't fit the new progressive socialist liberal ideology? Common sense and logic be dammed.

But worse, even in the face of historical facts related to that industry for environmental pollution, which has shown not to be detrimental to the environment is of no concern to the EPA, it has just decided that the coal industry is not in the best interest of the new progressive thinking, and so must be destroyed and replaced with energy sources that will not and can not supply the energy needs of the country.

But who cares, seek and destroy the opposition. Who are these people and how in God's good name did they take power to do this? Well, we do know how this happened, don't we!

Which States Lose From the Changes to the EPA's Clean Power Plan?
Source: Phillip Wallach, "Which States Lose From the Changes to the EPA's Clean Power Plan?" Brookings Institute, August 5, 2015.

August 12, 2015

The EPA's final Clean Power Plan is radically different from the version proposed a year ago, with big consequences for states that will face the most costly paths toward compliance in 2030.  The proposed rule gave coal-dependent states a break in many ways, but the final rule does not, meaning those states -- generally hostile to the rule -- face a much more difficult task in complying with it, writes Phillip Wallach for the Brookings Institute.

The basic structure is that the EPA set carbon emissions standards for two types of plants: for fossil fuel-fired steam generating units, 1305 lbs CO₂/MWh, and for stationary combustion turbines, 771 lbs CO₂/MWh.  Now each state's target is set by looking at a weighted average of their 2012 fossil fuel-fired electrical generating units and imposing those emission standards. 

States must devise their own plans to reach those targets, using just about any combination of measures they see fit, as well as preparing federally enforceable fallback plans to regulate each plant directly. The new mix of targets is far easier to defend as equitable -- it is much harsher on states that have done less to move toward carbon efficient energy production to date.

Roughly speaking, states that have already taken many actions to improve their carbon efficiency (especially embracing renewables and natural gas) are tasked with smaller additional reductions (e.g., California, states in the Northeast), while states that have done less and are still more coal-dependent are asked to do more (e.g., Illinois, Montana, North Dakota).

That makes plenty of intuitive and economic sense, but it is sure to make certain states dig in their heels against the rule politically. The EPA may well have decided that their opposition was a certainty in any case so that the extra requirements won't generate any extra enmity.