Jump to content

If the Lights Go Out


Valin

Recommended Posts

SB10001424052970204262304577068643772900890.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
WSJ:

12/6/11

Say what you will about Obama Administration regulators, their problem has rarely been a failure to regulate. Which makes the abdication of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission especially notable—and dangerous for the U.S. power supply.

(Snip)

The threat is that the EPA is triggering what NERC calls "an unprecedented resource-mix change," with utilities switching to natural gas from coal. For the first time in U.S. history, net coal capacity is in decline. On top of the 38 gigawatts of generation that is already being run below normal levels or slated for early retirement, NERC predicts another 36 to 59 gigawatts will come offline by 2018, depending on the "scope and timing" of EPA demands. That could mean nearly a quarter of all coal-fired capacity.

(Snip)

Keep in mind that the EPA estimates that the benefits to society from the mercury reductions in the utility rule max out at $6.1 million, total, while imposing $11 billion in compliance costs annually. That is a crazy tradeoff even if it didn't endanger the electric grid.

The best option would be to kill the utility rule and put the EPA on probation, but second best is a longer phase-in to give utilities more time to comply. FERC could do some practical good by formally issuing a "215 finding" that the EPA utility rule endangers reliability. Or the White House budget and regulatory office could require the EPA to repropose the rule with more flexibility. Or President Obama could declare that the rule endangers national security. Or Congress could block the rule, though that would take more fortitude than Senate Democrats have shown so far.

None of this is likely to happen because it would interfere with the larger Administration priority to kill as much coal power as rapidly as possible to serve the global warming agenda. But when the brownouts and cost-spikes occur, don't blame the utilities. Blame their regulator.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valin!

 

From article

Keep in mind that the EPA estimates that the benefits to society from the mercury reductions in the utility rule max out at $6.1 million, total, while imposing $11 billion in compliance costs annually. That is a crazy tradeoff even if it didn't endanger the electric grid.

 

That is the new Obama Math.

 

$6,100,000 > $11,000,000,000

 

Plus guess who pays for the 11 billion dollars in compliance costs?

 

It sure ain't Obama's food stamp folks. It is the working class - again and again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 1714804649
×
×
  • Create New...