Dark Obama Plot: Black Out U.S. Power Supply

teaparty.org - (Tea Party) – Several years ago Obama boldly proclaimed he would "bankrupt" coal companies and ensure energy prices "skyrocket" as part of his 'combat global warming' plan. Apparently this is one promise Obama intends to keep. A new EPA rule regarding emissions will take out as much as 40 percent of the nation's power supply leading to a potential doubling of Americans' energy bills.

Dark Obama Plot: Black Out U.S. Power Supply

New EPA rule could double energy bills

(Tea Party) – Several years ago Obama boldly proclaimed he would "bankrupt" coal companies and ensure energy prices "skyrocket" as part of his 'combat global warming' plan. Apparently this is one promise Obama intends to keep. A new EPA rule regarding emissions will take out as much as 40 percent of the nation's power supply leading to a potential doubling of Americans' energy bills.

In January 2008 Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board:

FAX BLAST SPECIAL: Impeach Obama NOW!

"So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them, because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted"

"Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I'm capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, they would have to, uh, retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers," Obama said.

The new EPA rule would require a massive reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the new rule would pose a threat to new coal-fired energy plants since they cannot meet the new standard without resorting to cost-prohibitive technology that is still unproven.

With this new rule, the coal industry is right in the Obama administration's crosshairs just like Obama promised.

According to Daniel Simmons, vice president of policy at the Institute for Energy Research and the author of the group's response to the proposed rule:

"They set an emission rate, and that rate is so low that no coal-fired power plants can actually meet that goal unless they include this technology called Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), which is incredibly expensive and doesn't exist on any power plant in the world today. Essentially what this new rule is is a ban on new coal-fired power plants."

Simmons explained that the new CCS rule slashes the emissions standards in half from the levels they are set at now…but he does not believe future coal plants are the only targets.

Simmons warned: "If they are able to do this, and if they get away with it, they will then go after existing coal-fired power plants."

He went on to explain that coal provides about 40 percent of the nation's power supply, and it is not at all clear how that would be replaced.

"That's a heck of a lot of electricity that would have to be made up somewhere. We're talking about dramatically increasing the cost of electricity all to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. I think that is the real goal," Simmons said. Although he has not officially crunched the numbers, Simmons believes that without a doubt the rule will have disastrous effects on the pocketbooks of Americans as well as on the economy should it proceed.

"It could get awfully expensive," Simmons said. "Some people might see their electricity rates double. If there's no backup power plants, that means electricity is going to get awfully expensive when you have shortages around the country. If we want to build manufacturing in this country again, the cost of electricity is critical. Otherwise, companies are going to go places where electricity is reliable and inexpensive, and the EPA is trying to make it so that the electricity in the United States is neither reliable nor inexpensive."

Just what is CCS about then? According to Simmons it is about the desire, however unreasonable it is, to clamp down on carbon dioxide.

"What EPA has tried to do is limit all of the pollution, so that it really only emits water vapor or carbon dioxide because those things don't harm people. You don't get sick from breathing carbon dioxide; you breathe that out. So the problem is the plants have gotten cleaner, and now they're regulating the last thing there is to regulate, which is carbon dioxide emissions," explained Simmons.

The EPA justification for CCS is that it's proven effective simply because there is a plant being built in the US and one in Canada that will use the technology. Three more facilities have been planned but according to Simmons the government is conveniently leaving out some facts:

"Every single one of these power plants [is] heavily subsidized by the government." He also noted that both of the plants under construction have received hefty $300 million taxpayer subsidies. "The technology is awfully expensive because it hasn't been tried anywhere, and that's to try to capture the carbon dioxide as it comes out after they burn the coal."

The cost to build the US power plant started at an estimated $2.4 billion—it's already exploded to $4.3 billion. Simmons says that the EPA is required to provide real-world proof via examples that the technology works but has only offered up future facilities to substantiate its claims.

He goes on to say, "That's kind of a crummy argument. Nothing says it's going to work in the real world or even be close to being cost-effective." Simmons is also taking aim at the EPA's defense that energy companies will all choose natural gas facilities over coal-fired plants because the price of gas is cheap. The government maintains that the rise of natural gas makes the future of coal plants a moot point.

"That, again, is awfully silly because the economics of natural gas can change rather quickly," Simmons says.

It does indeed seems to be a rather bleak situation in the immediate future but Simmons contends that there are three avenues worth pursuing that would stop the rule from taking effect later in the year.

"EPA has a comment period on this rule for the next 60 days, where citizens can write EPA and tell them what they think of the rule," Simmons said. "Second of all, Congress really has to change the law so it's obvious that EPA can't do this. The third thing is, because I believe this is ideologically driven, it will end up in the courts. It will be there for the next couple of years and hopefully the side of affordable, reliable electricity prevails."

There is a public hearing scheduled on the issue for Feb. 6, 2014 from 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. which is to be held at the William Jefferson Clinton building East, 1201 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., 20004. Members of the public may speak at the hearing by registering.

Comments on the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants must reference Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0495.Commentscan be made in several ways:

Online at Regulations.gov by following the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [email protected]
Fax: (202) 566-9744.
Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., 20460.
Hand delivery or courier: Deliver your comments to: EPA Docket Center, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, D.C., 20460. Deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation. Please make special arrangements for delivery of boxed information.