The EPA myth of “Clean Power”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Cartoon-EPA-Torture-ReportCFACTThere are many things I do not like about the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency, but what angers me most are the lies that stream forth from it to jus­ti­fy pro­grams that have no basis in fact or sci­ence and which threat­en the econ­o­my.

Cur­rent­ly, its “Clean Pow­er” plan is gen­er­at­ing its lat­est and most duplic­i­tous Admin­is­ter (sic), Gina McCarthy, to go around say­ing that it will not be cost­ly, nor cost jobs. “Clean Pow­er” is the name giv­en to the EPA pol­i­cy to reduce over­all U.S. car­bon diox­ide (CO2) emis­sions by 30% from 2005 lev­els by 2030. It is requir­ing each state to cut its emis­sions by vary­ing amounts using a base­line estab­lished by the EPA.

Sim­ply said, there is no need what­ev­er to reduce CO2 emis­sions. Car­bon diox­ide is not “a pol­lu­tant” as the EPA claims. It is, along with oxy­gen for all liv­ing crea­tures, vital to the growth of all veg­e­ta­tion. The more CO2 the bet­ter crops yields will occur, health­i­er forests, and green­er lawns. From a pure­ly sci­en­tif­ic point of view, it is absurd to reduce emis­sions.

Gina McCarthy

EPA Admin­is­tra­tor Gina McCarthy

Writ­ing in The Wall Street Jour­nal on April 22, Ken­neth C. Hill, Direc­tor of the Ten­nessee Reg­u­la­to­ry Author­i­ty, said “Sen­ate Major­i­ty Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) set off a firestorm when he advised states not to com­ply with the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency’s Clean Pow­er Plan. Yet that advice isn’t as rad­i­cal as his detrac­tors make it sound. As a state pub­lic util­i­ties com­mis­sion­er who deals with the effects of fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions on a reg­u­lar basis, I also rec­om­mend that states not com­ply.”

Not­ing its final due date in June, that refusal would impose a Fed­er­al Imple­men­ta­tion Plan on states “that risks even greater harm,” said Hill. “But the prob­lem for the EPA is that the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment lacks the legal author­i­ty under either the Con­sti­tu­tion or the Clean Air Act to enforce most of the regulation’s ‘build­ing blocks’ with­out states’ acqui­es­cence.”

As this is being writ­ten, there are two joined cas­es before the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Appeals, State of West Vir­ginia v. EPA and Mur­ray Ener­gy v. EPA. They are a chal­lenge to Pres­i­dent Obama’s “War on Coal” and the EPA efforts to reg­u­late its use. Fif­teen states, along with select coal com­pa­nies, have sued for an “extra­or­di­nary whit” (writ) to pre­vent the EPA from pro­mul­gat­ing the new car­bon reg­u­la­tions found it the Clean Pow­er plan.

Writ­ing in The Hill, Richard O. Faulk, an attor­ney and senior direc­tor for Ener­gy Nat­ur­al Resources and the Envi­ron­ment for the Law and Eco­nom­ics Cen­ter at George Mason Uni­ver­si­ty, not­ed that “The EPA’s argu­ment con­fi­dent­ly hinges on con­vinc­ing the courts that the Clean Air Act doesn’t mean what it says. By its plain lan­guage, the bill pro­hibits the EPA from reg­u­lat­ing the pow­er plants from which these emis­sions derive. More­over, coal plants are already addressed under an entire­ly dif­fer­ent sec­tion of the bill than the one EPA insists jus­ti­fies its pow­ers.”

Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.VA)

Sen­a­tor Shel­ley Moore Capi­to (R-W.VA)

The lat­est news, as report­ed by Myron Ebell, the direc­tor for ener­gy and envi­ron­ment of the Com­pet­i­tive Enter­prise Insti­tute, is that “Sen­a­tor Shel­ley Moore Capi­to (R-W.Va.) this week intro­duced a bill to block the Envi­ron­men­tal Pro­tec­tion Agency’s pro­posed rules to reg­u­late green­house gas emis­sions from new and exist­ing pow­er plants. S. 1324, the Afford­able Reli­able Ener­gy Now Act, has 26 orig­i­nal co-spon­sors, includ­ing Major­i­ty Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Sen­ate Envi­ron­men­tal and Pub­lic Works Com­mit­tee Chair­man James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Demo­c­rat Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.).”

Both Major­i­ty Leader McConnell and Chair­man Inhofe have said that they are deter­mined to stop the EPA’s green­house gas rules, so I expect quick action to move Capito’s bill.  In the House, a bill to block the rules, H. R. 2042, the Ratepay­er Pro­tec­tion Act, was vot­ed out of the House Ener­gy and Com­merce Com­mit­tee on 29th April and is await­ing floor action.”

It’s worth not­ing that, when Oba­ma took office, 50% of America’s elec­tri­cal ener­gy was sup­plied by coal-fired plants and, just 6 years lat­er, that has been reduced by 10%. What kind of Pres­i­dent would delib­er­ate­ly reduce American’s access to afford­able pow­er?

It’s the same kind of Pres­i­dent that believes—or says he does—the pro­nounce­ments of the UN’s Inter­gov­ern­men­tal Pan­el on Cli­mate Change. The IPCC’s “Cli­mate Change 2014 Syn­the­sis Report” claims that world will face “severe, per­va­sive, and irre­versible dam­age” if coal-fired and oth­er carbon-based—coal, oil, and nat­ur­al gas—energy sources are not replaced with “renew­able ener­gy sources”—wind and solar—by 2050. It wants fos­sil-fueled pow­er gen­er­a­tion “phased out almost entire­ly by 2100.”  Now this is just insan­i­ty, unless your agen­da is to destroy the world’s eco­nom­ic sys­tem and kill mil­lions. That would be the only out­come of the IPCC rec­om­men­da­tions.

The colum­nist Lar­ry Bell, a pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Hous­ton, points out that, “As for expect­ing renew­ables to fill in the pow­er curve, Euro­pean Union expe­ri­ences offer a painful real­i­ty check. Approx­i­mate­ly 7.8% of Germany’s elec­tric­i­ty comes from wind, 4.5% from solar. Large (sic) as a result, Ger­man house­holds already fork out for the sec­ond high­est pow­er costs in Europe—often as much as 30% above the lev­els seen in oth­er Euro­pean coun­tries. Pow­er inter­rup­tions add to buyer’s remorse.”

As report­ed in The Heart­land Institute’s Envi­ron­ment & Cli­mate News, “Euro­pean gov­ern­ments, once at the van­guard of renew­able ener­gy man­dates, appear to be hav­ing sec­ond thoughts about their reliance on giant wind farms…” There has been a sharp drop in such projects with instal­la­tions plung­ing 90% in Den­mark, 75% in Italy, and 84% in Spain.

What the EPA is attempt­ing to impose on Amer­i­ca is a drain on our pro­duc­tion of elec­tric­i­ty cou­pled with an increase in its price. It is an obscene attack on our econ­o­my.