Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville
To accurately judge this situation one has to be quite knowledgeable about the technology of coal based energy generation, the financial strategies required for that type of business, and the energy generation method's specific environmental impact. Then, one may be qualified to judge the specific law or regulation(s) (if they have actually read it) to determine whether its negative impact on the corporation's finances is actually greater than the societal benefit from the resulting environmental protections.
Since very few of us have sufficient background knowledge and have actually read and understood the specific law(s) or regulation(s) in question, we have to rely on the opinions of others. I am more inclined to trust the judgement of a highly educated and trained government regulator working for a salary than the opinion of a person with a significant financial stake in the matter. That's just how I role, I'm skeptical about anyone trying to make money off me.
Last edited by Hard Truth; 01-27-13 at 06:22 PM.
Regulatory Actions | Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) for Power Plants | US EPA
Q&A with Scott Segal on New Mercury MACT Rule | ERCC
Here's another oneUtility MACT will undermine job creation in the United States in several different ways. It will result in retirement of a significant number of power plants and either fail to replace that capacity or replace it with less labor-intensive forms of generation. It will increase the cost of power, undermining the international competitiveness of almost two dozen manufacturing industries, and it will reduce employment upstream in the mining sectors. All told, it is anticipated that the rule will result in the loss of some 1.44 million jobs by 2020. While some jobs are created by complying with the new rule, the number and quality of those jobs is far less than those destroyed. We estimate that for every one temporary job created, four higher-paying permanent jobs are lost. The bottom line: this rule is the most expensive air rule that EPA has ever proposed in terms of direct costs. It is certainly the most extensive intervention into the power market and job market that EPA has ever attempted to implement.
Air Transport | US EPA
The cost to businesses that have to retrofit in order to comply? 800 billion. That = lost jobs. Obama's EPA isn't running analysis in regards to how their regulations will affect existing jobs and future job growth. They are supposed to, but instead are ramming in regulations from a pure ideological standpoint. Not grounded in economic day to day reality. Jobs and the economy be damned.
EPA Regulations have increased costs to some businesses as much as 33%
This is the problem with centralized planning. Nobody holds the EPA accountable when their regulations produce unintended consequences that cost jobs and hurt the economy. They don't have to worry about costs like private businesses do. Hell, they don't even have to take responsibility.
"...update emission limits for new power plants under the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS). The updates would only apply to future power plants; would not change the types of state-of-the-art pollution controls that they are expected to install; and would not significantly change costs or public health benefits of the rule...."
Perhaps that is why no public hearing was requested during the public comment period.
The second link features the opinions of a representative of an indu$try trade group.
Re. the third link:
"This rule, known as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), requires states to significantly improve air quality by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and/or fine particle pollution in other states. In a separate, but related, regulatory action, EPA finalized a supplemental rulemaking on December 15, 2011 to require five states - Iowa, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin - to make summertime NOX reductions under the CSAPR ozone season control program. CSAPR requires a total of 28 states to reduce annual SO2 emissions, annual NOX emissions and/or ozone season NOX emissions to assist in attaining the 1997 ozone and fine particle and 2006 fine particle National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)." EPA
How much is the difference in the NOX and SO2 levels you believe should be allowed compared to the new EPA (2006) standards? How many extra asthma and emphysema cases would the old levels create?
The fourth link is to the uncorroborated testimony of the CEO of a Ready-Mix and Building Material$ company.
Last edited by Hard Truth; 01-27-13 at 06:53 PM.