Sky-high Electric Bills Courtesy of Obama EPA’s War on Coal

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.” — Candidate Barack Obama,  San Francisco Chronicle interview,  January 17, 2008

“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” — Candidate Barack Obama,  Same interview as above

“We’re going to have to cap the emission of greenhouse gasses. That means that power plants are going to have to adjust how they generate power … but a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity, and that means we’re going to have to change our light bulbs, we’re going to have to shut the lights off in our houses.” — Candidate Barack Obama,  Iowa PBS interview, November 9, 2007

Electricity rates are indeed set to skyrocket, as Barack Obama predicted back in 2008, while he was still a freshman Senator and ambitiously aspiring to White House occupancy. The Obama administration’s new Environmental Protection Agency regulations on coal-fired electrical power generation, if allowed to go into effect, will mean that even a lot of us who can’t afford it will “have to pay more per unit of electricity.” But the pain will be much more severe than merely having to change our light bulbs.

If Congress doesn’t act to rein in the EPA’s all-out war on coal, we will all be paying much higher electrical rates — and higher prices for just about everything else, since virtually everything we eat, drink, wear, and use requires energy for production and transportation. Thousands of coal-mining jobs are on the chopping block, of course, but hundreds of thousands of other jobs spread across all sectors of our economy are on the same chopping block. For businesses that are struggling to remain viable in this ongoing recession, energy costs are critical and even a slight uptick in rates can be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

The billions of dollars in compliance costs that the Environmental Protection Agency is mandating for coal-fired electrical plants will be that straw for many businesses, as those costs get passed on. Dozens of power plants, however, are simply shutting down; the costs of compliance are simply too high. So, another pain we may soon experience is an increase in rolling brownouts and blackouts.

In July 2011, Georgia Power Company announced that it would be closing three coal-fired power plants over the next two years, due to the EPA’s new regulations.

“Georgia gets more than half its energy from coal, and Georgia Power gets 60 percent or more from coal,” noted Benita Dodd, vice president of the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. “So this is going to become a very expensive venture for Georgia ratepayers.” Georgia electricity customers will be socked by a formidable one-two economic punch, Dodd explained. “The closures are going to hurt ratepayers now, but the regulations are going to hurt when they’re implemented,” Dodd said. “These regulations are indefensible, they’re unnecessary, and they’re incredibly expensive.”

The same grim scenario is rolling out across much of the nation. “The impact of these EPA rules will be felt most severely in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which together account for more than a fourth of all U.S. manufacturing,” writes Paul Driessen, in his 2001 report, The EPA’s Unrelenting Power Grab, published by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. “These states,” notes Driessen “rely on coal to generate 65-92% of their electricity, which keeps costs down for hundreds of companies that remain competitive nationally and internationally primarily because they can utilize energy-intensive industrial boilers, furnaces and electrical machinery, to boost their productivity per worker-hour: 6.9 to 9.4 cents per kilowatt-hour in those six states, versus 11 to 17 cents per kWh in states that generate 1-30% of their electricity with coal.”

In December 2011, the Associated Press reported that “32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations.” The AP also published a list of the plants that would be shuttered. However, that list quickly became obsolete; as utilities crunched the numbers and surveyed the costs, more began throwing in the towel.

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, condemned EPA’s attack on coal in unsparing terms. “It’s hard to imagine that the Obama EPA is announcing a massive energy tax today on Americans at a time when they are already reeling from skyrocketing gas prices,” Inhofe stated. “So much for President Obama’s claims to be for an ‘all-of-the-above’ approach — these regulations are designed specifically to kill coal in American electricity generation, which will significantly raise energy prices on American families. This plan is the most devastating installment of the Obama administration’s war on affordable energy: it achieves their cap-and-trade agenda through regulation instead of legislation.”

The regulations to which Inhofe, Driessen, Dodd, and other critics are referring is actually a series of three EPA policy edicts unleashed by the Obama administration that include a huge array of complex mandates. They are:

• The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which requires 27 states to reduce power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from power plants in Eastern states in an effort supposedly to improve ozone and fine particulate air quality in other downwind states. Under CSAPR, EPA set new limits on SO2 and NOx emissions for each state beginning in 2012. The limits tighten in some states in 2014.

• Utility MACT, which requires stringent new standards for removing mercury and other hazardous wastes.

• Policies to regulate coal combustion residuals (CCR) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and to regulate cooling water intake under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act.

• Carbon dioxide regulations requiring new coal plants to produce no more than 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity.

The first three policies outlined above are aimed at killing off existing coal-fired plants; the fourth policy, on CO2, aims at killing new coal-fired plants before they can be born.

A study released in September 2011 by National Economic Research Associates, Inc. (NERA) paints a very harrowing picture of the impact of the EPA rules on existing coal plants. The study concluded:

Over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 183,000 jobs per year are predicted to be lost on net.... The cumulative effects mean that over the period from 2012 to 2020, about 1.65 million job-years of employment would be lost. U.S. GDP would be reduced by $29 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $190 billion (2010$). U.S. disposable personal income would be reduced by $34 billion each year on average over this period, with a cumulative loss from 2012 to 2020 of $222 billion (2010$).

And those are conservative estimates; the NERA economists note that they do not consider several other variables that would likely drive the total costs and losses higher.

Those figures also do not include the costs that the EPA’s CO2 rules will impose on future energy production.

This being an election year, and with energy prices being a major campaign issue, it is not surprising that the Obama administration is trying to portray the onerous new regulations as moderate, sensible, and flexible. “Today we’re taking a common-sense step to reduce pollution in our air, protect the planet for our children, and move us into a new era of American energy,” said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in her March 27 statement announcing the CO2 mandates. “We’re putting in place a standard that relies on the use of clean, American made technology to tackle a challenge that we can’t leave to our kids and grandkids.”

Jackson concluded her statement with the incredible assertion that “EPA does not project additional cost for industry to comply with this standard.”

Environmental extremists have greeted all of the EPA’s attacks on coal, and especially its CO2 regulations, with jubilation because they believe (the administration’s current rhetoric notwithstanding) these will prove to be lethal blows to coal, the ultimate villain d’jour of those who identify themselves as “greens.” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune is overjoyed that the EPA’s CO2 rule would make it “nearly impossible to build a new coal plant,” apparently agreeing (for once) with the American Public Power Association, which claims the new mandate will “kill coal going forward.”

“EPA’s action will effectively ban the construction of new coal-fired power plants,” says Dr. Bonner Cohen, senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. He explains why that is:

Under the rule, no new power plant will be allowed to emit more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. On average, U.S. coal plants emit 1,768 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of electricity. The rule requires future plants to use as yet non-existent carbon capture and control technologies to cut their emissions to the new standard. With no technology available to bring down CO2 emissions to the new standard, EPA, in the name of combating climate change, is effectively telling the coal industry, which produces 55 percent of our nation’s electricity, that its days are numbered.

Striking his best moderate-sensible-flexible pose, President Obama stated, in his February 23, 2012 Miami speech on energy, that “we’ve got to have a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. Yes, oil and gas, but also wind and solar and nuclear and biofuels, and more.”

Whether the President’s omission of coal in that equation was intentional or a Freudian slip, it is clear that his administration does indeed have coal in the crosshairs — and it is firing one shot after another into its intended victim. That is a terrible crime because it is killing our economy as well as killing some of our best prospects for moving toward energy independence, prosperity, and fuller employment.

In our March 19, 2012 cover story, “Coal: The Rock That Burns,” Ed Hiserodt provides a detailed report on the enormous current and potential benefits that our massive coal deposits offer, noting that the United States “is considered by many geologists as the ‘Saudi Arabia’ of coal.” He writes:

The Energy Information Agency reports the United States has a Demonstrated Reserve Base of 496 billion short tons of coal, of which 272 billion tons are considered recoverable with current technology. With U.S. usage at 1.1 billion tons per year, we have about 250 years’ supply at the present rate of consumption. But as with other energy resources — though we use millions of tons of coal — reserves rise each year as new coal seams are located.

Coal, Hiserodt points out, “provides life-saving and life-enhancing energy for America.” It is, he notes, “a resource that is proven and available. We should be very thankful for this energy miracle that provides us comfort, improves our health, and gives us more years to enjoy the blessings of life.”

However, the Obama administration seems to be packed with activists who are pathologically obsessed with obstructing our ability to utilize this “miracle rock.” At the same time, the EPA radicals are also throwing roadblocks in the way of our access to, and use of, oil, natural gas, uranium, and every other viable form of energy.

One thing I don’t have is sky high electric bills.

I attacked our energy consumption as a project. Our lifestyle is unchanged. Instead of paying $150, $250 and more a month for electricity like my neighbors, my bill runs $35 to $55 per month.

I did not want to give up my hot tub. That took some work but it is now completely solar powered, including the circulating pump.

My amortization goal was one year to payback on investment. I met that goal. I did not spend tens of thousands of dollars to get this all done.

but also wind and solar

Solar? Like when the Neanderthal was cold and enjoyed the radiant energy of the sun to keep warm? How "progressive". Wind? Like only a measly 200 years ago when the world's measure of might depended on the count of tall masted ships and nimble "clipper ships"? How "progressive". Obviously, Obamugabe wants us to start living in caves and commuting to work by canoe. How "progressive".

Where are the Americans who nearly revolted over $1.50 to $3.00 ATM charges? All of a sudden they don't care about $4.00 a gallon gasoline?

Remember the brown outs in California? Yet we are doing NOTHING about Obama’s WAR ON COAL? (WAR ON ENERGY might be better). Oh I forgot, “Green Energy” must have solved that problem.

We can't mine, we can't drill, we can't Frack, we can't permit nuclear.

We MUST, build windmills, put up acres of solar panels, grow algae, take Spinach and Corn out of the mouths of starving people, and spend BILLIONS (if not Trillions) subsidizing these loser industries.

*********************WAKE UP AMERICA*********************

Please explain how you did that because I would like to emulate your success, and I am sure that many others would as well. With domestic paybacks running in the multi decade region, you might have achieved a miracle.

Start with an inventory of everything that draws electricity. One by one replace or reduce the consumption of each. For example, do you really need your fridge set on the coldest setting? It is a bunch of small steps.

Not everything I did is going to work everywhere. For example, the evaporative cooler. Those don't work at all in humid climates. However, in dry climates the energy gobbling A/C is completely replaced with an evaporative (swamp) cooler. A new evaporative cooler costs $550. But you can get them used for $100 and completely rebuild it for $50.The evaporative cooler pays for itself in 2 to 3 months.

For the hot tub, I went with a solar collector I made myself. Ready bought cost $1,200 plus. At first the circulating pump was plugged into regular power but now I've replaced it with a small solar panel so the hot tub is completely off the grid.

Pop in night lights in main walking areas in your house. You don't need to flip on lights every time you walk into a room. Also, put the lights that draw the most electricity where you need them and stop flooding the whole room with light if all you need is concentrated light in one area.

The biggest savings though came when I taped into my neighbor's power without them knowing (just kidding).

One year payback? That’s hard to believe. Every energy project I’ve seen has 10 or 15 year payback (or much worse). You must have had an energy-hog of a home and were able to pluck some low-hanging energy fruit.

Nope. Standard ordinary house. Single family ranch detached. If there was low hanging fruit it was the A/C. Where I live 110 degrees is common. I don't run the A/C and my house is cool. So is my back patio for that matter. I leave the patio door open so the cool air from the house makes the outdoor patio a comfortable temp.

No way would I go with those "energy projects" with 10 or 15 year payback. Those numbers don't work.

If you can't cut your electric bill you are not trying. If you think you have to buy into one of those expensive energy projects to get it done you are not being smart financially.

One would hope that the energy companies that are currently being forced to shut down their coal plants are wise enough to simply “put them on ice” for the time being, with the intent that they could be restarted on short notice.

One of the first agendas that conservatives and Congress must “push” Romney towards after the inauguration will be to IMMEDIATELY REVERSE any and all of the executive orders and “environmental regulations” of the previous four years, and get energy production moving again (i.e., development of resources and energy generation from those resources).

This will be one of the first “tests” he must face, insofar as whether he intends to govern with the interests of the nation in mind — or just be more “business as usual”, which, in this case, means leave all the nonsense of the previous administration in place....

“He *did* warn us.He said in ‘08 that he intended to bankrupt the coal industry.Funny that he’d say that given that we have something like a 300 year supply.Why,one would think that he wants this country to revert to the 1600’s or something.”

Fast-forward to the year 2052.

It’s evening. A father and son are walking to their destination in the chilly twilight.

In the distance, the son views the hulking remains of a huge, abandoned building.

“What was that, Daddy?”, he asks.

“In my day, son, it was something called a power plant. It made electricity.”

“What was electricity?”, the son replies...

“Not everything I did is going to work everywhere. For example, the evaporative cooler. Those don’t work at all in humid climates. However, in dry climates the energy gobbling A/C is completely replaced with an evaporative (swamp) cooler. A new evaporative cooler costs $550. But you can get them used for $100 and completely rebuild it for $50.The evaporative cooler pays for itself in 2 to 3 months. “

Right there is about 3/4 of your electric savings.

Steven Harris at solar1234.com has some easy and effective methods of reducing your heating and cooling expenses.
He has a book called “How to really cool your house” which talks about evaporative cooling for your roof and attic space, since a house heats from the roof down.

I just put in the radiant barrier sheathing with a new roof,
and it’s supposed to block 97% of the radiant heat transfer.

You are living in a cave with one electric outlet and one light bulb. Not much better than your average plain old cave.

I, on the other hand, want to plunder the planet for all her resources (sarc). I want to run my air conditioners (plural) to maintain 65 degrees (I leave them on for my dogs), run my heater with my windows open, go for a drive, just because I feel like it. Have my TV come on instantly, (actually it is already on 18 hours a day), leave the TV or radio on, FOR MY DOGS, when no one else is home, Not to mention two computers (”sleep mode” NEVER), run my huge freezer, rerun my dryer just to fluff the clothes, Wash em twice if they sit too long, leave my outside lights on (just in case) (I do use CFL’s though and motion sensors), run the fan in my livingroom 24/7, leave the florescent under cabinet lights on 24/7 for those unexpected nightly trips, run my water bed heater 24/7, take as long and hot of a shower as often as I want to (cave people are smelly), .......etc.

I want to produce and use as much energy as I want to. We HAVE the coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear (or nucular) resources for hundreds if not THOUSANDS of years. DOMESTIC energy production produces THOUSANDS (maybe millions) of high paying jobs, including all the secondary jobs it produces, trucking, road construction, retail, etc. NOT TO MENTION, all the money that STAYS HERE in the U.S.A. instead of financing Muslim terrorists trying to kill us.

THIS is the attitude to have, NOT to try the liberal way out, (conservation). Conservation WON'T WORK, and is TOTALLY UNNECESSARY.

I’m with ya on that one.

Especially when I see Obama jetting all over the planet, Washington lit up all night, every night, even empty ‘office’ buildings. And the rich using what ever amount they want to, while telling us that aren’t rich, we have to change our ways!

I’ll use what I want. At least as long as I can afford to. Til Obama’s damage is out of my reach.

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.