Comments From Supporters Of EPA's New Power Plant Rule

My last post highlighted two lengthy comments submitted to EPA by groups of states critical of the agency’s recently-proposed “Power Plant Rule.” (EPA’s official title: “New Source Performance Standards for GHG Emissions from New and Reconstructed EGUs; Emission Guidelines for GHG Emissions from Existing EGUs; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.” ). The Rule seeks to eliminate, or nearly so, all greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants, by some time in the 2030s. The comments that I highlighted delve into substantial technical detail, giving serious reasons why EPA’s proposed transformation of the country’s electricity generation system is unlikely to work and poses severe risks to the people’s electricity supply.

What about on the other side? Are there any comments on the proposed Rule that are supportive of the Rule, and that even contend that its restrictions on use of fossil fuels to generate electricity should be made more stringent, and/or advanced in time? The answer is that there are many such comments.

But how do these supportive comments deal with the problems identified in the critical comments? What do they say about risks to the reliability of electricity supply, or about the potential for greatly increased costs? The answer, as far as I can determine, is that they can’t be bothered addressing such issues.

I’ll freely admit that I haven’t attempted to read all the comments, of which there are now some 618. Rather, I have sought out a few from groups that appeared likely to be supportive of the Rule. So here are three such comments: one from something calling itself the U.S. Healthcare Climate Council; a second from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and a third from a consortium of healthcare groups in Wisconsin described as “American Academy of Pediatrics - Wisconsin Chapter, Cream City Medical Society, Healthy Climate Wisconsin, et al.”

The “U.S. Healthcare Climate Council” may sound like some sort of official body, but as far as I can determine it is just a lobbying group based outside of D.C. that uses the cover of “healthcare” to push for elimination of fossil fuels. (Here is their website if you want to investigate further.). Here is their position on the proposed Rule:

We strongly support the EPA using their authority in sections 111(b) and (d) of the Clean Air Act to set these new pollution standards that would require fossil fuel power plants to reduce their GHG emissions for the first time and recommend that the standards be as strong as possible to protect human health and prevent the worst climate change impacts from occurring.

(Bold is in the original.). So what are the “climate change impacts on human health” they are talking about? There’s this:

A strong limit on power plant carbon pollution would also protect those patients who are most vulnerable, including children, older adults, those with health conditions, and people with lower incomes and communities of color who feel the health harms of climate change soonest and most intensely.

How exactly does that work? They don’t say. Hey, everybody know it. Read on and you come to this:

The proposed rules would result in up to $85 billion in net climate and health benefits, while preventing 1,300 premature deaths and over 300,000 cases of asthma attacks by 2030.

And what is the source? The link goes to EPA’s own “fact sheet” on the proposed Rule! As far as I can determine, the numbers are completely made up by government advocates, and certainly the “U.S. Healthcare Climate Council” has not checked them in any way. Since when does CO2 cause asthma? Hey, EPA says it, so it must be true.

And how about the issue of whether the emissions reduction goals are achievable on the stated timescale? These guys don’t deal with that, but that doesn’t stop them from advocating for shorter deadlines and more stringent requirements in every respect: “Increase the number of gas plants covered by the rule. . . . Move up compliance timelines so that power plants must reduce their emissions this decade. . . .”

As to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, you might wonder what expertise they have in anything related to climate change or how electricity is generated. The answer is that they have none, but that doesn’t keep them from showing their virtue here. Here’s their statement of why they are commenting:

As climate change continues to adversely affect the well-being of women, people seeking obstetric and gynecologic care, families, and communities, ACOG supports greater recognition of and investment into addressing the effects of the environment on public health. Specifically, ACOG in its position statement [c]alls on our national and international leaders to act to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit further climate destabilization. . . . Greenhouse gas emissions accelerate climate change, which poses a serious threat to American’s health and well-being. . . .

In 2030 alone, nationwide the proposed standards would prevent: approximately 1,300 premature deaths; . . . more than 300,000 cases of asthma attacks. . . .

It’s the exact same bullshit projections cribbed from EPA’s own “fact sheet” and parroted back to them with no independent thought or research. And in conclusion:

Rapid emissions reductions are therefore required to limit damage to global ecosystems which provide essential services necessary for human wellbeing and societal stability.

I like the “therefore” in that sentence. No support for the proposition was provided in anything that preceded it.

And finally for today we have the comment from a large coalition of environmental and health groups from Wisconsin, which include Evergreen Action, Healthy Climate Wisconsin, Green Neighbor Challenge, the Wisconsin Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, and many more. The gist:

[O]ur organizations urge the EPA to set the strongest possible safeguards on carbon pollution by early next year. While the agency’s current proposal is a good start, we ask the EPA to strengthen it in three ways: 1) require power plants to reduce their emissions more quickly, 2) apply the pollution safeguards to a wider number of gas plants, and 3) ensure communities have input on how the pollution safeguards are implemented at power plants.

Carbon pollution from the fossil-fuel industry drives climate change and leads to poor air quality and increasingly negative health outcomes, including respiratory disease, heart disease, and insect-borne infectious diseases.1 According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, poor air quality as a result of climate change can harm respiratory and cardiovascular systems. These health impacts include hypertension, coronary artery disease, heart attack, and stroke.2

And where does any of that come from? Footnote 1 goes to yet another EPA self-serving advocacy piece, “Climate and Human Health.” Footnote 2 goes to a similar piece from NIH.

Now, I don’t wish anybody a premature death, but this advocacy has completely lost its way. EPA has somehow ginned up a number of 1300 premature deaths per year that it thinks it can prevent by shutting down an electricity generation system that works and replacing it with something that has not been demonstrated to work or even been subject to a feasibility study. Last year there were 3,274,000 deaths in the U.S., so 1300 would be 0.04%, and they would appear to be counted by EPA even if the death is premature by only one day. How EPA knows that an imperceptible change in temperature could cause these deaths is an excellent question.

Meanwhile, what about the benefits of a reliable electricity supply? Is it really possible that we so completely take that for granted, like it’s just a fact of life? If we suddenly start having blackouts that last for weeks or months, how many people are then going to die prematurely? Hundreds of thousands per year, that’s how many.

One of the comments at the linked site:

E Olson 2 hours ago · 0 Likes

If I was put in charge of the EPA, I would put in place a policy that would require all environmental regulations to be tested first on the people who propose and support them. Thus those who want to "live without fossil fuels" would be asked(forced) to participate in "science based research" to determine what the health impact of "living without fossil fuels" would entail. This would mean the net zero crowd would have to pay the full price of "green electricity", have natural gas connections to their home/businesses shut off, and stop using/consuming all products produced or transported using fossil fuels for the duration of the experiment (2-3 years should be sufficient to get adequate data - all in the name of science). I could be wrong, but I suspect my new policy would greatly reduce the number of net zero regulatory proposals and comments of support from virtue signaling NGOs, which of course is why I would never be put in charge of the EPA.

What about the health effects of expensive electricity?

If the more stringent regulations cause the price of electricity to rise by 20% (my own made up number, but one more likely than the EPA’s) people will have less money to spend on healthcare and life sustaining drugs.

These regulations are more likely to have detrimental effects on health that they are to have positive effects on life and health.

Any time energy prices rise the people in the lower income bracket suffer. Cheap energy saves lives, it has always been true.

The biggest correlation of long, healthy life is the wealth of the individual/society. Rich people and rich societies live longer!
So taking away money from society will contribute to many premature deaths!

THIS is exactly the kind of counter-proposal that needs made EVERY TIME the Greenie Weenies propose a rule.

I suggest that ALL THE SUPPORTERS of ANY RULE be required to live under that rule for no less than 5 YEARS. IF there are NO VIOLATIONS, aka 100.00% compliance then the rule can be implemented. Past time for these Pukes to Put Up or Shut Up!!

Some of the very hard core Greenie Weenies may make the 5yrs, the vast majority of supporters will fail within a few days. At that point, those supporters should be “Taxed” DOUBLE for the rest of their lives because they are STUPID. Yes, STUPID should HURT!!!!

“science denier!”

Science has become a cheap whore. It proves anything politicians and their bureaucrats, social movements / activists want to sell to the public. It’s no more than another label, a seal of approval which is supposed to give the illusion of being logical, empirical, objective to the folks this is being sold to.

There is a big problem with “science” today: https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a

The problem is that it’s not science.

It’s a joke...

Old time FReeper humor.

Whenever a news story contains a very conservative person or comment, we’d say this.

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.