由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
USANews版 - Obama’s War on Coal Is Driving up Energy Costs,
相关主题
Report: Administration’s Efforts to Cut Red Tape Cost Economy $23 BillionEPA经费减了1%
贴一个人均年 CO2 排放AP也retract news了
The Cost of Washington's War on Coal我郑重改变立场:支持EPA局长普鲁伊特
EPA的规定遭到15个州法庭上的挑战美国最大问题还是cost从来不降
EPA moves to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan coal regsLet’s Talk About the Real Issues, Mr. President
Obama administration official: Crucify oil and gas companiesEmails Point to IRS Officials Using Instant Messages
EPA Chief:巴马的环保法律对低收入人群危害最大司法部派出监察员去18个州监督大选,防止种族歧视 (转载)
一EPA官员被发现每周末公款从旧金山飞南加州馬統又要違憲了
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: coal话题: energy话题: epa话题: costs
进入USANews版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
l****z
发帖数: 29846
1
Obama’s War on Coal Is Driving up Energy Costs, Disproportionately
Affecting the Poor
In June of 2013, former science advisor to the Obama administration Daniel
Schrag told [1] the New York Times that:
“The one thing the president really needs to do now is to begin the
process of shutting down the conventional coal plants. Politically, the
White House is hesitant to say they’re having a war on coal. On the other
hand, a war on coal is exactly what’s needed.”
The president’s war is working.
According to a recently released report [2] by the Energy Information
Administration (EIA), more than 80 percent of the nearly 18 gigawatts of
electric generating capacity retired in 2015 was conventional steam coal.
This represents 4.6 percent of the nation’s coal capacity at the start of
2015.
The Energy Information Administration gives two primary reasons for the
recent decline in coal. First is that companies have switched fuel because
of the abundance of inexpensive natural gas from fracking. The other reason
for coal’s demise is much more problematic: Burdensome regulations devoid
of any significant direct environmental benefit.
One such regulation is the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury
and Air Toxic Standards rule, which went into effect in April of 2015. A
study [3] done by National Economic Research Associates included indirect
costs and found the rule has an economic cost of $25.6 billion per year.
The EPA credits this regulation with 30 percent of coal retirement in 2015.
The rule requires approximately 600 facilities [4] to cut mercury emissions
by a substantial amount. The EPA predicted this rule will have an annual
cost of $9.6 billion to the U.S. electricity sector —what’s worse is that
other studies have been estimated to have an even more significant effect.
The Energy Information Administration’s recent report is not the first
indication that coal has been on the decline [5].
A study of the years 2008-2012 found that the coal industry shrunk by almost
50,000 jobs [6]—the future does not bode well either unless Congress
decides to act.
The EPA has placed global warming regulations on power plants that would
make it extremely difficult to build a new coal-fired power plant in America
. And the agency’s Clean Power Plan could continue the push to drive out
the country’s existing coal fleet [7].
The administration’s attack on the coal industry has come from agencies as
well.
The Department of the Interior recently announced a prohibition on leasing
of public land [8] to coal companies while it “reviews” the leasing
process (a procedure which will inevitably result in making it more
difficult and more expensive for coal companies to lease federal land).
Coal plant closures harm more than just those working in the coal industry.
Just as lower energy prices save families and businesses money, artificially
driving prices higher through unnecessary regulations hit consumers again
and again.
As for the potential benefits, the EPA is notorious for overestimating the
environmental gains from these regulations.
They estimated that the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards rule would produce
up to $90 billion per year in environmental benefits. However, the direct
benefits of the regulation, the mercury reductions, would produce a mere $6
million in benefits.
The EPA generates such a larger figure by including co-benefits covered by
existing regulations already on the books. This means that 99.996 percent of
the supposed benefits have nothing to mercury reduction.
The problem with all of this is that an increase in energy prices
essentially functions as a regressive tax [9], as higher energy costs affect
low-income households disproportionately, because they spend a higher
percentage of their budget on energy costs.
Though some of economic damage caused by the administration’s coal
regulations cannot be undone, Congress and the next administration can and
should reverse course. America has nearly five centuries worth of coal under
its soil.
Opening access to America’s natural resources and reducing the regulatory
burden that carries exorbitant costs and little to no environmental benefit
will ensure coal has the potential to be an affordable, reliable energy
supply long into the future.
Nicolas Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory
issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
Andrew Wilford is a member of the Young Leaders Program at The Heritage
Foundation.
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by The Daily Signal [10].
Source URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/nicolas-loris/obamas-war-coal-driving-energy-costs-disproportionately-affecting-poor
1 (共1页)
进入USANews版参与讨论
相关主题
馬統又要違憲了EPA moves to repeal Obama’s Clean Power Plan coal regs
免费大学,问题多多Obama administration official: Crucify oil and gas companies
大统领的一大"政绩"被法官叫停了EPA Chief:巴马的环保法律对低收入人群危害最大
Trump税改还会是雷声大雨点小一EPA官员被发现每周末公款从旧金山飞南加州
Report: Administration’s Efforts to Cut Red Tape Cost Economy $23 BillionEPA经费减了1%
贴一个人均年 CO2 排放AP也retract news了
The Cost of Washington's War on Coal我郑重改变立场:支持EPA局长普鲁伊特
EPA的规定遭到15个州法庭上的挑战美国最大问题还是cost从来不降
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: coal话题: energy话题: epa话题: costs