Obama Promised, Promise Kept?

Even without Cap and Tax, Coal Industry shutting down.

Hey folks,

Remember, Obama TOLD US what he wanted to do.

"What I've said is that we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is more -- that is as aggressive if not more aggressive than anybody else's out there, so if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."

He even told you that your Electric Bills will "SKYROCKET."

"When I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know, under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."

HIS OWN WORDS. He said it. He promised it. Promise kept? Now he could not get his Cap and Tax passed. So what does he do? Yup. He uses the EPA to do it for him.

Over the next 18 months, the Environmental Protection Agency will finalize a flurry of new rules to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants. Mercury, smog, ozone, greenhouse gases, water intake, coal ash—it’s all getting regulated. And, not surprisingly, some lawmakers are grumbling.

Industry groups such the Edison Electric Institute, which represents investor-owned utilities, and the American Legislative Exchange Council have dubbed the coming rules “EPA’s Regulatory Train Wreck.” The regulations, they say, will cost utilities up to $129 billion and force them to retire one-fifth of coal capacity. Given that coal provides 45 percent of the country’s power, that means higher electric bills, more blackouts and fewer jobs. The doomsday scenario has alarmed Republicans in the House, who have been scrambling to block the measures. Environmental groups retort that the rules will bring sizable public health benefits, and that industry groups have been exaggerating the costs of environmental regulations since they were first created."

That means higher Electric Bills, more Blackouts and fewer Jobs." Yeah, THAT'S what this Country needs right now. Is it NOT? But if it were not so serious, this next part would be funny. They go out, Congress {Liberals} and get a "nonpartisan" group, known as Congressional Research Service, CRS, to try to prove that this is NOT bad. They say in their report that:

First, the report agrees that the new rules will likely force the closure of many coal plants between now and 2017, although it’s difficult to know precisely how many.

So yeah. Some will be forced to shut down. No we can not say how many, how many Jobs will be lost, now how this will effect the supply end of the Energy Market. Which means we can not say how much more it will cost YOU. Of course, we also can not say, that because of the lesser Supply, how many people will face Energy Shortages. Even now, people in places like California are facing Rolling Blackouts. How many more will face this? We can not say. But hey, these are old and should not be here anyway. They will be replace eventually by "combined Cycle Natural Gas Plants." So no worries.

Still, that’s a lot of plants. Won’t this wreak havoc on the grid? Not necessarily, the CRS report says, although the transition won’t be simple. For one, most of these plants don’t provide as much baseload power as it appears on first glance—pre-1970 coal plants operating without emissions controls are in use, on average, only about 41 percent of the time. Second, the report notes that “there is a substantial amount of excess generation capacity at present,” caused by the recession and the boom in natural gas plants. Many of those plants can pitch in to satisfy peak demand. Third, electric utilities can add capacity fairly quickly if needed — from 2000 to 2003, utilities added more than 200 gigawatts of new capacity, far, far more than the amount that will be lost between now and 2017.

Granted, those upgrades and changes won’t be free. The CRS report doesn’t try to independently evaluate the costs of the new rules,

Of course not. It doesn't matter how much it will cost. Energy Companies are big evil Monsters that make insane Windfall Profits anyway, so they can afford it. Forget a lot of this is Nonsense and NOT accurate. Lets go with their numbers. They admit that the loss of these Plants will result in a LOSS of Energy Output which will have to be made up somehow. How many more jobs will be Lost? Oh, just like the COST of all this, they do not say. I love this. Why will this not hurt the Energy Industry?

"And many of the EPA’s rules are almost certain to get bogged down in court or delayed for years, which means that utilities will have more time to adapt than they fear."

{Laughing} So we know that these Rules are unconstitutional, and will be challenged. The EPA does NOT have the Authority to create nor enforce LAW. That is Congress's Job. So while Energy Companies are spending Millions in Court to fight them, they have plenty of time to conform. Now no surprise here. They AGREE with the Liberal Agenda and Talking Points. But notice this.

The CRS report also agrees with green groups that the benefits of these new rules shouldn’t be downplayed. Those can be tricky to quantify, however. In one example, the EPA estimates that an air-transport rule to clamp down on smog-causing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide would help prevent 21,000 cases of bronchitis and 23,000 heart attacks, and save 36,000 lives. That’s, at the high end, $290 billion in health benefits, compared with $2.8 billion per year in costs (according to the EPA) by 2014. “In most cases,” CRS concludes, “the benefits are larger.”

First, These are COMPLETELY Made Up numbers. Completely BOGUS. "21,000 cases of bronchitis and 23,000 heart attacks, and save 36,000 lives." That's like the Liberal, "2 Million Jobs will be saved or created." There is no way to count "Saved Jobs." But it SOUNDS good. These numbers are completely made up. But these numbers are NOT. It will cost the Energy Companies an ADDITIONAL $2.8 Billion per year in costs. Which is what this is all about after all. MONEY, POWER, and CONTROL! After reading this last Paragraph, I may very well Vote for Michele Bachmann.

Granted, few would expect this report to change many minds in Congress. Just 10 days ago, Michele Bachmann was on the campaign trail promising that if she becomes president, “I guarantee you the EPA will have doors locked and lights turned off, and they will only be about conservation.” That doesn’t sound like someone who’s waiting for a little more data before assessing the impact of the new regulations.

The EPA SHOULD be shut down. Or at least leashed in. They do NOT have the authority to Create nor ENFORCE Laws. They need to be put back in their place. If not done away with all together. They are nothing but a Liberal TOOL to further the Liberal Agenda. As for "That doesn’t sound like someone who’s waiting for a little more data before assessing the impact of the new regulations." Your RIGHT. Because we already KNOW.
Peter

Sources:
OPNTalk - Bankrupt Coal Industry Montage
The Washington Post - Getting ready for a wave of coal-plant shutdowns