Lisa Jackson's EPA...

[StreetScooby 5]

From the WSJ today:

Let's hope this doesn't fly. Someone needs to put the brakes on the EPA with this. Jackson's global warming concerns cannot justify the timing of this decision.

If the Lights Go Out
Regulators are letting EPA compromise U.S. electric reliability.

Say what you will about Obama Administration regulators, their problem has rarely been a failure to regulate. Which makes the abdication of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission especially notable—and dangerous for the U.S. power supply.

Last week FERC convened a conference on the wave of new Environmental Protection Agency rules that are designed to force dozens of coal-fired power plants to shut down. The meeting barely fulfilled the commission's legal obligations, but despite warnings from expert after expert, including some of its own, the FERC Commissioners refuse to do anything about this looming threat to electric reliability.

The latest body to sound the EPA alarm is the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC), which last Tuesday released its exhaustive annual 10-year projections. "Environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next one to five years," the report explains.

NERC's forecasts are the gold standard for the U.S. power system because they are built from the bottom up, starting with finely grained data from individual plants. NERC has been doing this work since 1967, and since 2005 it has operated under the FERC umbrella as an "electric reliability organization" similar to Finra, the securities regulator with quasi-governmental duties.

The threat is that the EPA is triggering what NERC calls "an unprecedented resource-mix change," with utilities switching to natural gas from coal. For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the "scope and timing" of EPA demands. That could mean nearly a quarter of all coal-fired capacity.

According to the report, "the nation's power grid will be stressed in ways never before experienced" and reliability depends on building new power plants to cover the losses. But the electric industry has only three years to comply under one EPA regulation known as the utility rule that is meant to target mercury and is due to be finalized soon, while many other destructive rules are in the works.

Replacing power is not like replacing a lost cellphone. There are bottlenecks in permitting, engineering, financing and building a new plant and then tying it to the electricity network. Over this same three-year window, NERC estimates that between 576 and 677 plants will need to be temporarily shut down to install retrofits like scrubbers or baghouses.

All of this has been obvious to anyone paying attention. In its draft utility rule the EPA itself warned that "sources integral to reliable operation" may be forced to shut down, before it sanitized these concessions from the final proposal. Twenty-seven states say their regional reliability is at risk, concerns echoed by FBR Capital, Credit Suisse, Fitch, Bernstein Research and several grid operators. FERC's own Office of Electric Reliability produced an alarming study, before its work was disowned by Chairman Jon Wellinghoff, as we reported in the September 26 editorial "Inside the EPA."

Southern Co., the utility that covers states from Mississippi to Georgia, says the EPA's timeline can't be met "at any cost" and that in its region "reliability cannot be maintained without load shedding"—that is, rationing power to large industrial consumers. American Electric Power, which operates in 11 Midwest states, says that option may be a "last resort" as well. This is the kind of political overhang that harms economic growth.

Keep in mind that the EPA estimates that the benefits to society from the mercury reductions in the utility rule max out at $6.1 million, total, while imposing $11 billion in compliance costs annually. That is a crazy tradeoff even if it didn't endanger the electric grid.

The best option would be to kill the utility rule and put the EPA on probation, but second best is a longer phase-in to give utilities more time to comply. FERC could do some practical good by formally issuing a "215 finding" that the EPA utility rule endangers reliability. Or the White House budget and regulatory office could require the EPA to repropose the rule with more flexibility. Or President Obama could declare that the rule endangers national security. Or Congress could block the rule, though that would take more fortitude than Senate Democrats have shown so far.

None of this is likely to happen because it would interfere with the larger Administration priority to kill as much coal power as rapidly as possible to serve the global warming agenda. But when the brownouts and cost-spikes occur, don't blame the utilities. Blame their regulator.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,085]

Industry proponents have been predicting doom and gloom since the first air pollution regulations came into existence in 1955. Reliability has actually improved during that time. Call "wolf" often enough and people stop believing you.

From the article:

"The threat is that the EPA is triggering what NERC calls "an unprecedented resource-mix change," with utilities switching to natural gas from coal. For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the "scope and timing" of EPA demands. . . .Replacing power is not like replacing a lost cellphone."

In the early 2000s, in response to the NOx SIP Call, the industry installed 96 GW of catalyst-based scrubbers in a five-year period while maintaining system reliability. Again coal lobbyists claimed that the NOx regulations would cause blackouts. Didn't happen. And third party analyses - run by people who will not lose money by switching to cleaner sources - show mimimal to zero reduction in reliability.

"This is the kind of political overhang that harms economic growth."

Economic policy institute, 6/14/11- the job impact of the air toxics rule "will be modest, but it will be positive," and "would have a modest positive net impact on overall employment, likely leading to the creation of 28,000 to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015."

Don't believe them? How about CEOs of PG+E, Calpine, National Grid, Excelon, Constellation Energy and Austin Energy? "Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability." (From a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor.)

Postponing or eliminating the air-toxics EPA rule helps a handful of industry investors profit from their investment in dirty coal. Implementing it helps everyone in the USA. The right thing to do is pretty clear.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

Industry proponents have been predicting doom and gloom since the first air pollution regulations came into existence in 1955. Reliability has actually improved during that time. Call "wolf" often enough and people stop believing you.

From the article:

"The threat is that the EPA is triggering what NERC calls "an unprecedented resource-mix change," with utilities switching to natural gas from coal. For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the "scope and timing" of EPA demands. . . .Replacing power is not like replacing a lost cellphone."

In the early 2000s, in response to the NOx SIP Call, the industry installed 96 GW of catalyst-based scrubbers in a five-year period while maintaining system reliability. Again coal lobbyists claimed that the NOx regulations would cause blackouts. Didn't happen. And third party analyses - run by people who will not lose money by switching to cleaner sources - show mimimal to zero reduction in reliability.

"This is the kind of political overhang that harms economic growth."

Economic policy institute, 6/14/11- the job impact of the air toxics rule "will be modest, but it will be positive," and "would have a modest positive net impact on overall employment, likely leading to the creation of 28,000 to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015."

Don't believe them? How about CEOs of PG+E, Calpine, National Grid, Excelon, Constellation Energy and Austin Energy? "Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability." (From a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor.)

Postponing or eliminating the air-toxics EPA rule helps a handful of industry investors profit from their investment in dirty coal. Implementing it helps everyone in the USA. The right thing to do is pretty clear.

By law, the EPA is to do an economic impact study before any rule is imposed

They have not done that

This is in the courts now

Hopfuly they will be stopped and the next Pres will eliminate the dept

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>By law, the EPA is to do an economic impact study before any rule is imposed

They did. You must not have read the first post in this thread.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>By law, the EPA is to do an economic impact study before any rule is imposed

They did. You must not have read the first post in this thread.

That is the EPA’s position

But really they only did a cursory "study" at best

That is why the law suit has been filed

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>But really they only did a cursory "study" at best

So you've gone from "They have not done that" to "OK they did one but I don't like it."

There is no law that says the EPA has to do a study and come up with conclusions you like - so it looks like that won't be a barrier to the adoption of this.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>But really they only did a cursory "study" at best

So you've gone from "They have not done that" to "OK they did one but I don't like it."

There is no law that says the EPA has to do a study and come up with conclusions you like - so it looks like that won't be a barrier to the adoption of this.

you are correct
they is no law that says that
I never said there should be so it is hard to understand where you come up with that .

the fact is the law suit has been filed because many believe that the EPA is trying to go around the law

Imagine that, a gov department with an agenda trying to get around some silly law

The EPA did NOT do the impact study required by law

The courts will settle this

In the mean time the rules will be stayed (I hope)

As for the rest of what you post to me here? Well that is just silly

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

So your position on this is:

1. "By law, the EPA is to do an economic impact study before any rule is imposed. They have not done that."

2. "But really they only did a cursory "study" at best"

3. "The EPA did NOT do the impact study required by law"

If the lawyer who presents the case uses that angle it will be a short case.

"Your honor, our case is simple. The EPA did not do the required analysis. Well, they did, but it was superficial. No, wait, they didn't do it."

Here's a summary of another analysis BTW:

========================
New Study Uncovers Additional $10.5 Billion in Annual Benefits and Nearly 80,000 More Jobs from EPA’s Proposed Utility Toxics Rule

Delay Will Impose Billions of Pollution-related Costs on Businesses and Delay Investment in New Generation Resources

July 14, 2011 –Washington, DC – A study issued today finds that the benefits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Utility Toxics Rule (also known as the Utility MACT) are even greater than found in the conservative analysis done by the Agency. The report, “Why EPA’s Mercury and Toxics Rule is Good for the Economy and America’s Workforce,” authored by Charles J. Cicchetti Ph.D, a senior advisor to Navigant Consulting, Inc., finds that the Utility Toxics Rule will produce net benefits of up to $139.5 billion and create 115,520 jobs. The report shows that while the EPA’s benefit-cost analysis made reasonable calculations of the benefits of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) reductions, the Rule brings additional benefits that EPA did not monetize but should be considered.

“Although the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis already shows that the benefits of the proposed Toxics Rule dwarf its costs, I found that it also overestimates compliance costs, contrary to the claims of those calling for additional study and delay,” said Cicchetti. “In my analysis of both the Toxics Rule and what is now being called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, I have identified a combined additional $10.5 billion in annual benefits to help the economy recover, including additional labor cost savings from avoided lost work days, reduced health and insurance costs, and increased employment.”
============================

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

So your position on this is:

1. "By law, the EPA is to do an economic impact study before any rule is imposed. They have not done that."

2. "But really they only did a cursory "study" at best"

3. "The EPA did NOT do the impact study required by law"

If the lawyer who presents the case uses that angle it will be a short case.

"Your honor, our case is simple. The EPA did not do the required analysis. Well, they did, but it was superficial. No, wait, they didn't do it."

Here's a summary of another analysis BTW:

========================
New Study Uncovers Additional $10.5 Billion in Annual Benefits and Nearly 80,000 More Jobs from EPA’s Proposed Utility Toxics Rule

Delay Will Impose Billions of Pollution-related Costs on Businesses and Delay Investment in New Generation Resources

July 14, 2011 –Washington, DC – A study issued today finds that the benefits of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Utility Toxics Rule (also known as the Utility MACT) are even greater than found in the conservative analysis done by the Agency. The report, “Why EPA’s Mercury and Toxics Rule is Good for the Economy and America’s Workforce,” authored by Charles J. Cicchetti Ph.D, a senior advisor to Navigant Consulting, Inc., finds that the Utility Toxics Rule will produce net benefits of up to $139.5 billion and create 115,520 jobs. The report shows that while the EPA’s benefit-cost analysis made reasonable calculations of the benefits of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) reductions, the Rule brings additional benefits that EPA did not monetize but should be considered.

“Although the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis already shows that the benefits of the proposed Toxics Rule dwarf its costs, I found that it also overestimates compliance costs, contrary to the claims of those calling for additional study and delay,” said Cicchetti. “In my analysis of both the Toxics Rule and what is now being called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, I have identified a combined additional $10.5 billion in annual benefits to help the economy recover, including additional labor cost savings from avoided lost work days, reduced health and insurance costs, and increased employment.”
============================

Yep
That is what the EPA put up

As for the rest of your post

What ever

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Here is another article on the impact of what the EPA is proposing

You all need to remember that for most companies in the US, regardless of what kind of plant generates the power, costs of electricity and fuel costs are a direct pass through and do not need to be covered by rate increases. In IA it is called a power cost adjustment on the bill you get

Also of note, the company I work for has been investing in equipment to meet the requirment dead lines and will meet those dead lines. They have not (that I know of) taken any position on the new rules. They have just worked to meet them.

Also of note from the linked article

  Quote

The EPA’s concessions haven’t dissuaded opponents from pressing challenges. At least 16 states, cities and power generators dependent on coal-fired plants have petitioned federal courts in Washington, D.C. to block the rule from being implemented Jan. 1.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-11-17/fight-on-clean-air-rules-threatens-to-delay-power-payback.html

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>Yep That is what the EPA put up

Nope, that wasn't the EPA report, it was a report by Charles J. Cicchetti of Navigant Consulting, a third party.

[mnealtx 0]

  Quote

>By law, the EPA is to do an economic impact study before any rule is imposed

They did. You must not have read the first post in this thread.

The report mentioned is from NERC, not EPA.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skiskyrock 0]

The proposed rules have nothing to do with global warming, they are related to sulfur dioxide emissions and eventually mercury emissions. Other plants have installed scrubbers, but the affected plants have decided that their plants are too old and decrepit (and profitable if they don't have to compete on a level playing field) to be worth retrofitting.

If the consequences of shutting down these plants is really as dire as the industry claims, why are they entrusting our energy security to these creaking relics?

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

Industry proponents have been predicting doom and gloom since the first air pollution regulations came into existence in 1955. Reliability has actually improved during that time. Call "wolf" often enough and people stop believing you.

From the article:

"The threat is that the EPA is triggering what NERC calls "an unprecedented resource-mix change," with utilities switching to natural gas from coal. For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the "scope and timing" of EPA demands. . . .Replacing power is not like replacing a lost cellphone."

In the early 2000s, in response to the NOx SIP Call, the industry installed 96 GW of catalyst-based scrubbers in a five-year period while maintaining system reliability. Again coal lobbyists claimed that the NOx regulations would cause blackouts. Didn't happen. And third party analyses - run by people who will not lose money by switching to cleaner sources - show mimimal to zero reduction in reliability.

"This is the kind of political overhang that harms economic growth."

Economic policy institute, 6/14/11- the job impact of the air toxics rule "will be modest, but it will be positive," and "would have a modest positive net impact on overall employment, likely leading to the creation of 28,000 to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015."

Don't believe them? How about CEOs of PG+E, Calpine, National Grid, Excelon, Constellation Energy and Austin Energy? "Contrary to the claims that the EPA's agenda will have negative economic consequences, our companies' experience complying with air quality regulations demonstrates that regulations can yield important economic benefits, including job creation, while maintaining reliability." (From a Wall Street Journal letter to the editor.)

Postponing or eliminating the air-toxics EPA rule helps a handful of industry investors profit from their investment in dirty coal. Implementing it helps everyone in the USA. The right thing to do is pretty clear.

Also
The company I work for is trying to decomission a coal converted to gas plant

It is a small one in Dubuque Iowa

As of yet, MISO will not allow it to be pulled off the grid

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jgoose71 0]

Every report listed on this thread so far says that the new regulations will cost the Power companies $10.5 to $11 billion.

The only difference is the Pro-regulation agenda spins it as "new jobs" and "economic recovery".

The problem is, do the power companies have $11 billion lying around? I know with the talk of government debt and waste in the trillions, billions just doesn't seem like that much anymore, but let's face it, that is a metric butt ton of money. And when you forcibly take it from the electric companies, what is that going to do to our utilities, which effects the cost of all of our goods?

Bill makes it sound like all companies have all this money coming out of their wazoo. While they are sitting on their cash, I don't think individual companies are sitting on $11 billion.

But one thing is for sure, this article does show why companies are sitting on their cash. They never know what big brother is going to do next to try to run them out of business.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[rushmc 23]

If the consequences of shutting down these plants is really as dire as the industry claims, why are they entrusting our energy security to these creaking relics?

[rushmc 23]

But one thing is for sure, this article does show why companies are sitting on their cash. They never know what big brother is going to do next to try to run them out of business.

[billvon 3,085]

>Every report listed on this thread so far says that the new regulations will cost the
>Power companies $10.5 to $11 billion.

Yep. They profit most by running the cheapest, dirtiest plants they can. On the other hand, construction companies, engineers, contractors, heavy equipment manufacturers etc will make a fair amount of money building new facilities - and the country as a whole will profit through fewer sick days and premature losses of employees.

>Bill makes it sound like all companies have all this money coming out of their wazoo.

They don't. It will certainly eat into their profits. But since many of them support it - obviously not too much.

>While they are sitting on their cash, I don't think individual companies are sitting on
>$11 billion.

Of course not. The $11 billion is for ALL power companies, not any one company. PG+E, for example, made a quarter billion profit last year; Excelon over half a billion.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>Every report listed on this thread so far says that the new regulations will cost the
>Power companies $10.5 to $11 billion.

Yep. They profit most by running the cheapest, dirtiest plants they can. On the other hand, construction companies, engineers, contractors, heavy equipment manufacturers etc will make a fair amount of money building new facilities - and the country as a whole will profit through fewer sick days and premature losses of employees.

>Bill makes it sound like all companies have all this money coming out of their wazoo.

They don't. It will certainly eat into their profits. But since many of them support it - obviously not too much.

>While they are sitting on their cash, I don't think individual companies are sitting on
>$11 billion.

Of course not. The $11 billion is for ALL power companies, not any one company. PG+E, for example, made a quarter billion profit last year; Excelon over half a billion.

The real points are this

1 Companies will make a profit or fold

2 Companies making a profit have to pass the costs on to the consumer to do so

3 Companies will comply. They are complying

4 The regulators are going nuts. They are un-elected burocrats that push their agenda on the county through abusive regulation
The result will be a cost of energy that will keep the country for growing for how ever long they are alowed to run free

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>1 Companies will make a profit or fold

Agreed.

>2 Companies making a profit have to pass the costs on to the consumer to do so

Or their shareholders.

>3 Companies will comply. They are complying

Then no problem. Case closed.

>4 The regulators are going nuts. They are un-elected burocrats that push their agenda
>on the county through abusive regulation

Poll results, Feb 2011: 64% of Americans think Congress should let the EPA do its job. 36% think they should interfere.

====================
Poll finds Americans oppose efforts to delay EPA emissions rules
Posted on October 12, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Puneet Kollipara

A strong majority of American voters oppose delaying upcoming Environmental Protection Agency rules for reducing toxic emissions from power plants as Republicans in Congress have sought to do, a new poll found.

Sixty-seven percent of voters said they think EPA’s upcoming rules “definitely” or “probably” shouldn’t be delayed, with the remaining 33 percent saying they should be delayed, the poll conducted by Ceres, a coalition of investors, environmental groups and public interest groups, found.
=====================

Sounds like the EPA is implementing the will of the people, and ignoring a vocal minority who want to line their pockets by operating dirty power plants.

>The result will be a cost of energy that will keep the country for growing for how
>ever long they are alowed to run free

Agreed. Clean energy and more jobs will keep our country growing for a long time.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>1 Companies will make a profit or fold

Agreed.

>2 Companies making a profit have to pass the costs on to the consumer to do so

Or their shareholders.

>3 Companies will comply. They are complying

Then no problem. Case closed.

>4 The regulators are going nuts. They are un-elected burocrats that push their agenda
>on the county through abusive regulation

Poll results, Feb 2011: 64% of Americans think Congress should let the EPA do its job. 36% think they should interfere.

====================
Poll finds Americans oppose efforts to delay EPA emissions rules
Posted on October 12, 2011 at 12:42 pm
Puneet Kollipara

A strong majority of American voters oppose delaying upcoming Environmental Protection Agency rules for reducing toxic emissions from power plants as Republicans in Congress have sought to do, a new poll found.

Sixty-seven percent of voters said they think EPA’s upcoming rules “definitely” or “probably” shouldn’t be delayed, with the remaining 33 percent saying they should be delayed, the poll conducted by Ceres, a coalition of investors, environmental groups and public interest groups, found.
=====================

Sounds like the EPA is implementing the will of the people, and ignoring a vocal minority who want to line their pockets by operating dirty power plants.

>The result will be a cost of energy that will keep the country for growing for how
>ever long they are alowed to run free

Agreed. Clean energy and more jobs will keep our country growing for a long time.

The "dirty power" mantra of the alarmists are a big part of the reason for the polling you site

As for the rest is it just the talking points those like you like to use to push your agenda

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>The "dirty power" mantra of the alarmists are a big part of the reason for the
>polling you site

Yep. People don't like pollution - and they are making their voices heard.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>The "dirty power" mantra of the alarmists are a big part of the reason for the
>polling you site

Yep. People don't like pollution - and they are making their voices heard.

About a perception that is less than turthful?

Then yes, we agree

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,085]

>About a perception that is less than turthful?

Nope. They don't like sulfur dioxides, mercury, arsenic, thorium or uranium in the air they breathe, and support actions that reduce those substances in the air. You can tell them that they're idiots, that you have no problem breathing that stuff - but apparently most of them disagree.

[rushmc 23]

  Quote

>About a perception that is less than turthful?

Nope. They don't like sulfur dioxides, mercury, arsenic, thorium or uranium in the air they breathe, and support actions that reduce those substances in the air. You can tell them that they're idiots, that you have no problem breathing that stuff - but apparently most of them disagree.

You like to work under extremes
The company I work for as well as most others have little or no problem reducing what you list here

It is the extreme regulations that are the problems
It is the lie that coal is so dirty it should never be used


Those like the CO2 regs

Also, two other things come to mind

1) the problems caused are not nearly as great as the alarmists like yourself like to rant about
2)alarmist do not care about the damage to economy their lies cause

As evidenced here by your posts

Get your way and the polling you like by not telling the truth
But I know the ends justify the means for the alarmists

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln