The EPA’s ‘Clean Power’ Mess

Wall Street Journal ^ | June 7, 2015 | BENJAMIN ZYCHER

[thackney]

‘Flexibility” is the advertised hallmark of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which by 2030 would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants by 30% from 2005 levels. The central feature of the plan is a forced shift away from inexpensive coal-fired power. Not to worry, says EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy: “With EPA’s flexible proposal, states choose the ways we cut carbon pollution, so we can still have affordable, reliable power to grow our economy.”

Under the plan, the EPA will set a carbon-dioxide-emissions target for every state, and give each state roughly a year to develop and implement a “state plan” to meet it. Of course, the EPA must approve the plan before it can go into effect. How is that flexible? The EPA allows states to choose any combination of four “building blocks” to reach its target—reducing coal, increasing natural-gas, more renewables and nuclear energy, and enhancing energy-efficiency standards.

So if the Clean Power Plan is so flexible, why has the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, in a May 15 letter to the EPA, voiced its concerns over the “flexibility” and potential impact on the “reliability” of America’s electricity grid once it is implemented? Signed by FERC Chairman Norman Bay and all four commissioners, the letter recommends a “Reliability Safety Valve,” which is defined as “a process through which the affected entities can petition the EPA for temporary waivers or adjustments to the emissions requirements or compliance timelines in an approved state plan to preserve Bulk-Power System Reliability.”

FERC and those in the industry it regulates seem to realize what the EPA does not: that the agency’s “building blocks” are mutually inconsistent. The recommended 6% efficiency improvement for coal plants is prohibitive in cost because their individual operating characteristics—the types of coal they use...

[Erik Latranyi]

With socialists, “flexibility” means they have more than one way to force you to do things their way.

[Ben Ficklin]

The final rule will be written soon, after which many lawsuits will be filed, and it will have to go back to SCOTUS for a final ruling.

The three previous SCOTUS decisions on CO2 are:

Massachusetts v EPA, 2007
AEP v Connecticut, 2011
Utility Air Regulatory Group v EPA, 2014

[cutty]

Hitler also wanted / got Flexibility for his final solution, too.

The real issue is not the weather, climate, nor carbon.

[tbw2]

If there are three prior rulings on this, why doesn’t the court slap the administration down?

[Georgia Girl 2]

This agency is just begging to be shut down along with BLM, ATF and IRS. Time for them to go.

[Ben Ficklin]

It started in 2007 with Mass v EPA and Scotus ruled that CO2 was a pollutant. They told EPA to regulate CO2 with the clean air act.

Bush, Obama, and everyone else wanted congress to step in and regulate CO2 but they were never able to pass cap and trade.

Obama/EPA then(2010) moved forward with regulations for CO2 on new permits/new plants and numerous lawsuits were filed and they would be combined as Utility Air Regulatory Group(UARG) v EPA.

But before that case could be heard, a second CO2 case reached SCOTUS(2011), AEP v Conn. SCOTUS ruled that states can't regulate CO2 and only the feds via EPA can regulate CO2, re-enforcing their 2007 decision.

In June 2014, SCOTUS ruled on UARG v EPA for Obama/EPA but they put some limitations on the permitting process.

Just prior to this ruling, Obama/EPA released their draft regs on existing permits/existing plants, which is called the Clean Power Plan mentioned in the article above. EPA is close to completing the comment period and will the release the final rule(July, Aug?), after which there will probably be lawsuits filed.

Last June after Obama released the draft regs, Murray Coal company and 12 coal states preemptively sued and that case has been heard by the DC Court of Appeals, but they haven't ruled yet.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Good post.

[Paladin2]

Where on these cases did Traitor Roberts vote?

[Ben Ficklin]

The first case and most important(Mass v EPA 2007) was 5-4 with Kennedy joining the 4 dems.

In AEP v Conn 2011 it was 9-0 against the states being able to regulate CO2.

In UARG v EPA 2014 it was 7-2 with Thomas and Alito voting against EPA/Obama

[Paladin2]

thnx.