David Hauptmann:
NBC News writes, “In a move already meeting stiff resistance from powerful energy industry groups, the Obama administration formally announced a proposal Monday that would slash carbon emissions at existing power plants by 30 percent by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. . . . The rule is being celebrated by environmental advocates, who call the move a positive step towards slowing climate change and improving air quality, while opponents deride the plan as a sure bet for job losses – particularly in the coal industry. Republicans quickly branded the proposal a ‘national energy tax.’ Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the plan ‘a dagger in the heart of the American middle class.’”
Following the EPA’s announcement, Leader McConnell blasted the Obama administration’s expensive new regulations, saying, “Today’s announcement is a dagger in the heart of the American middle class, and to representative Democracy itself. Already reeling from the painful effects of Obamacare, the American people are now being told they have to shoulder the burdens of the President’s latest ‘solution’ in the form of higher costs, fewer jobs, and a less reliable energy grid. The fact that the President plans to do all this through an end-run around Congress only highlights his contempt for the wishes of the public and a system of government that was devised precisely to restrain an action like today’s.
“By imposing these draconian new rules on the nation’s coal industry, President Obama and every other liberal lawmaker in Washington who quietly supports them is also picking regional favorites, helping their political supporters in states like California and New York while inflicting acute pain on states like Kentucky. The impact on individuals and families and entire regions of the country will be catastrophic, as a proud domestic industry is decimated — and many of its jobs shipped overseas. Those who don’t lose jobs to foreign competitors will see higher utility costs and other living expenses at a moment they can least afford it. In short, the downstream effects of today’s announcement will be staggering for millions.
“Another tragedy in today’s announcement is that for all the pain this new rule will inflict on ordinary Americans, there is no clear benefit. These new rules will cheer the far-left patrons of Washington liberals, but there is simply no question that our competitors around the world will eagerly replace whatever industry we lose as a result of these new rules. The notion that these competitors will follow our lead is pure and utter fantasy.
“The sad truth is that the only thing America will lead in if these rules go into effect is the unilateral dismantling of our own economic supremacy and the self-imposed destruction of one of our nation’s main competitive advantages in the global economy. And that’s why I will offer legislation this week to stop this assault on Kentucky and the broader U.S. economy, because the President and his allies should not be allowed to get away with this. Congress must listen to the families who will be hardest hit by these rules — even if the President won’t.”
Clearly, there’s more than just environmental concerns driving the Obama administration’s announcement today. Bloomberg News wrote yesterday, “The proposal may be Obama’s last best chance at strengthening his position with environmentalists who were disappointed in his failure in his first term to create a cap-and-trade system for limiting carbon emissions. . . . The proposed rules are among policies ‘designed to drive out low-cost electricity and replace it with higher-cost, more expensive and less reliable electricity,’ Hal Quinn, chief executive officer of the National Mining Association, said today on ABC’s ‘This Week’ program.”
The Washington Post notes, “Ever since a climate bill stalled in the Senate four years ago, environmental and public health activists have been pressing Obama to use his executive authority to impose carbon limits on the power sector, which accounts for 38 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions. Opponents, including coal producers, some utilities and many Republicans, argue that the EPA is using a novel legal approach to demand stringent greenhouse gas cuts that are not achievable given current technology.”
According to The Wall Street Journal, “The rule would affect hundreds of fossil-fuel power plants—hitting the nation’s roughly 600 coal-fired plants the hardest.” And The Post adds, “The regulations could also affect natural-gas-fired power plants, which emit about half as many greenhouse gases as coal plants. . . . The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a lobbying group that represents energy companies with major investments in coal-fired power plants, has prepared an analysis that cites a study estimating that a phase-out of coal plants could cost consumers $13 billion to $17 billion a year between 2018 and 2033. ‘There are no off-the-shelf technologies to address carbon, only fuel-switching regardless of expense or energy rationing,’ the group writes. Scott Segal, a government relations and communications specialist at Bracewell & Giuliani who has been working with the council, said the proposed rule ‘is likely to be expensive, controversial and intrusive for households and small businesses.’”
And yet, even with all this economic pain, there won’t be much achieved from these rules in the end, as Leader McConnell said. The New York Times acknowledges, “[B]y itself, the president’s plan will barely nudge the global emissions that scientists say are threatening the welfare of future generations. . . . The new rule alone offers little hope that the United States and other nations can achieve cuts on a scale required to meet the internationally agreed limit on global warming.”