Skip to comments.EPA Regulation of the Day: 316 (b) Cooling Towers Rule
Posted on 11/08/2012 10:25:53 AM PST by 92nina
Quote of the Day:
Somehow we have to have to figure how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.- Energy Secretary Steven Chu
With Congress and the American people rejecting cap-and-trade, the Obama Administration has employed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to achieve similar ends. Delaying job-killing regulations until after the November election, the EPA is currently sitting on numerous proposed rules sure to increase the cost of energy.
A recent report from Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) unearths thirteen EPA regulations likely to hit American consumers should President Obama be reelected.
316 (b) Cooling Towers Rule: $384-$460 million
From the Inhofe Report:
EPA is planning to require the use of strict protections for fish in cooling reservoirs for power plants under the Clean Water Act. EPAs own estimates put the draft rule costs between$384 million and $460 million per year and have benefits of just $17 million a cost benefit gap of more than 22 to 1. As the Washington Guardian noted about the delay, In its latest election-year delay of regulations, the Obama administration said Tuesday it will defer until next year acting on a Clean Water Act rule that could require expensive new construction at power plants to lower fish deaths. The postponement by the Environmental Protection Agency was not unexpected, with the agency having only recently completed a public comment period on its latest data. Still, the move to add another 11 months to the rulemaking marks the latest step by the administration to delay potentially controversial environmental rules until after the November election.
Does your Senator want efficient, reliable energy?
Earlier this year the Senate voted to overturn one of the EPAs most damaging regulations, the Utility MACT. If your Senator voted Yes, they wanted to repeal the Utility MACT; if they voted Nay, they voted to preserve the job-killing measure.
Read more: http://atr.org/epa-regulation-b-cooling-towers-rule-a7340#ixzz2BecorVnV
EPA = ENERGY PREVENTION AGENCY
Why wasn't that prominently featured in campaign ads? Why wasn't it brought up in the debates? Why won't R's go to battle during campaigns?
The title said cooling towers. The report says cooling reservoirs. They are as different as apples and oranges.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.