Pain at the Plug

[B. Kidd]

.......will be the new 'catchphrase' to be added in addition to 'pain at the pump'.

Four more years of Obie will see electricity rates skyrocket! His EPA is seeing to it!!!

Unprecedented number of US coal-fired power stations to be shut down in 2012

 

[Trakar]

.......will be the new 'catchphrase' to be added in addition to 'pain at the pump'.

Four more years of Obie will see electricity rates skyrocket! His EPA is seeing to it!!!

Unprecedented number of US coal-fired power stations to be shut down in 2012

Of course, the reason many if not most coal-fired power stations are being shut down, is that they can't complete with low-priced, cleaner natural gas!

U.S. coal use falling fast as utilities switch to gas

 

[Moonglow]

The old carbon belching power plants are passe`,

Gas-fired power plants make a comeback

Gas-fired power plants make a comeback | Graycor

 

[flacaltenn]

The old carbon belching power plants are passe`,

Gas-fired power plants make a comeback

Gas-fired power plants make a comeback | Graycor

I take that then as a total endorsement of fracking and the mandate to immediately build about 120 new gas plants to replace the 40 coal plants that are being shut by Fed policy next year.. That'll just break us even and DOESN'T address the OP..

The OP asks WHERE the ADDITIONAL power to charge EVs and still keep the rates down will come from.. If we follow the policies in Europe, and pursue Conservation more than we value increased production, there will be HUGE FINES for exceeding your allotment of electricity.. THAT WILL be REAL "pain at the plug".

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, if one has an electric vehicle with good range, there is no need to worry about the pain at the plug if you also become a producer of electricity. For most homeowners, that is the practical solution. Wind and solar for small units have both come down in price.

 

[Mr. H.]

Why doesn't Obama make loan guarantees to coal fired power plants so they can install scrubbers and other pollutant-capturing devices? Seems to be a more prudent investment.

 

[Truthmatters]

do you guys remember all the coal mine disastors under Bush?

 

[Trakar]

Why doesn't Obama make loan guarantees to coal fired power plants so they can install scrubbers and other pollutant-capturing devices? Seems to be a more prudent investment.

The Myth of Clean Coal: Analysis - Popular Mechanics

 

[Katzndogz]

Democrats not only have to stop coal mining, they also have to prevent fracking, which might be easier.

So far, obama's war on coal has resulted in the coal miner's unions in Ohio and Kentucky asking it's members to sit out the election and not vote. How many will really do that? They won't vote for obama but that's about all we know for sure.

 

[Trakar]

As long as coal producers cover all their economic externality costs, rather than relying on society to pay the costs of the damages coal is responsible for, I certainly have no problem with its continued production and utilization. As for fracking, as far as I can tell, there is no compelling evidence yet available that the process is causing widespread damages. It certainly can be negligently and improperly abused, but for the most part this doesn't seem to be the case. I've nothing against a properly regulated and monitored fracking industry.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.......will be the new 'catchphrase' to be added in addition to 'pain at the pump'.

Four more years of Obie will see electricity rates skyrocket! His EPA is seeing to it!!!

Unprecedented number of US coal-fired power stations to be shut down in 2012

Of course, the reason many if not most coal-fired power stations are being shut down, is that they can't complete with low-priced, cleaner natural gas!

U.S. coal use falling fast as utilities switch to gas

Some people are incredibly stupid, and they are all smarter than you.

 

[flacaltenn]

Of course, if one has an electric vehicle with good range, there is no need to worry about the pain at the plug if you also become a producer of electricity. For most homeowners, that is the practical solution. Wind and solar for small units have both come down in price.

Why don't I just buy a cow and some chickens and go into the farming business?

Nissan calls for a 230V 40 amp service to run their charger.. You will NOT be charging your EV from home wind and solar. Unless you have two or THREE of them or removable bat packs.. You will be charging them FROM THE GRID...

Watch -- his next post will accuse me of not knowing what grid parallel is...
But he NEVER ADDRESSES the practicality of his proposal.. Never gets beyond the hand-waving and hype..

 

[flacaltenn]

As long as coal producers cover all their economic externality costs, rather than relying on society to pay the costs of the damages coal is responsible for, I certainly have no problem with its continued production and utilization. As for fracking, as far as I can tell, there is no compelling evidence yet available that the process is causing widespread damages. It certainly can be negligently and improperly abused, but for the most part this doesn't seem to be the case. I've nothing against a properly regulated and monitored fracking industry.

Can we then scratch Biomass Conversion off the list of Alternatives? Since it is fundamentally similiar in externalities to coal???

I happen to believe that you could EITHER cleanly in terms of pollutants (not CO2 because it aint a pollutant) -- IF you could build new COAL plants without years of litigation.

 

[Trakar]

I happen to believe that you could EITHER cleanly in terms of pollutants (not CO2 because it aint a pollutant) -- IF you could build new COAL plants without years of litigation.

The only 2 primary biofuels issues I have is that 1) Neither food nor drink should be used as fuel so long as there are undernourished (or thirsty)people (regardless if its government rotgut, corn liquor don't belong in fuel tanks), 2) most current production methods utilize and employ fossil fuels to harvest, transport, process and distill the "bio"fuel.

The supreme court has ruled that in the terms the EPA uses to qualify CO2, you are mistaken. In fact, not only is the EPA "allowed" to classify CO2 as a pollutant, it is directed by Judge Roberts' majority opinion ruling that the EPA must consider CO2 as a pollutant and must enforce clean air standards - (the EPA was sued by the state of Massachusetts because it refused to label CO2 as a pollutant, the supreme court rejected the EPA explanations of why they did not want to treat CO2 as a pollutant. ( Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency - Wikisource, the free online library - Based on respected scientific opinion that a well-documented rise in global temperatures and attendant climatological and environmental changes have resulted from a significant increase in the atmospheric concentration of "greenhouse gases," a group of private organizations petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to begin regulating the emissions of four such gases, including carbon dioxide, under § 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, which requires that EPA "shall by regulation prescribe . . . standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class . . . of new motor vehicles . . . which in [the EPA Administrator's] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution . . . reasonably . . . anticipated to endanger public health or welfare," 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1). The Act defines "air pollutant" to include "any air pollution agent . . ., including any physical, chemical . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air." § 7602(g)
(...)
(b) The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. The Government's own objective assessment of the relevant science and a strong consensus among qualified experts indicate that global warming threatens, inter alia, a precipitate rise in sea levels, severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems, a significant reduction in winter snowpack with direct and important economic consequences, and increases in the spread of disease and the ferocity of weather events. That these changes are widely shared does not minimize Massachusetts' interest in the outcome of this litigation. See FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11, 24, 118 S. Ct. 1777, 141 L. Ed. 2d 10. According to petitioners' uncontested affidavits, global sea levels rose between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming and have already begun to swallow Massachusetts' coastal land. Remediation costs alone, moreover, could reach hundreds of millions of dollars. Pp. 17-19.
(c) Given EPA's failure to dispute the existence of a causal connection between manmade greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, its refusal to regulate such emissions, at a minimum, "contributes" to Massachusetts' injuries. EPA overstates its case in arguing that its decision not to regulate contributes so insignificantly to petitioners' injuries that it cannot be haled into federal court, and that there is no realistic possibility that the relief sought would mitigate global climate change and remedy petitioners' injuries, especially since predicted increases in emissions from China, India, and other developing nations will likely offset any marginal domestic decrease EPA regulation could bring about. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop, see Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483, 489, 75 S. Ct. 461, 99 L. Ed. 563, but instead whittle away over time, refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed, cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 202-203, 67 S. Ct. 1575, 91 L. Ed. 1995. That a first step might be tentative does not by itself negate federal-court jurisdiction. And reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly tentative. Leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the record indicates that the U.S. transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Pp. 20-21.
(d) While regulating motor-vehicle emissions may not by itself reverse global warming, it does not follow that the Court lacks jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 243, n. 15, 102 S. Ct. 1673, 72 L. Ed. 2d 33. Because of the enormous potential consequences, the fact that a remedy's effectiveness might be delayed during the (relatively short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an older one is essentially irrelevant. Nor is it dispositive that developing countries are poised to substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere. The Court attaches considerable significance to EPA's espoused belief that global climate change must be addressed. Pp. 21-23.
2. The scope of the Court's review of the merits of the statutory issues is narrow. Although an agency's refusal to initiate enforcement proceedings is not ordinarily subject to judicial review, Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S. Ct. 1649, 84 L. Ed. 2d 714, there are key differences between nonenforcement and denials of rulemaking petitions that are, as in the present circumstances, expressly authorized. EPA concluded alternatively in its petition denial that it lacked authority under § 7521(a)(1) to regulate new vehicle emissions because carbon dioxide is not an "air pollutant" under § 7602, and that, even if it possessed authority, it would decline to exercise it because regulation would conflict with other administration priorities. Because the Act expressly permits review of such an action, § 7607(b)(1), this Court "may reverse [it if it finds it to be] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law," § 7607(d)(9). Pp. 24-25.
3. Because greenhouse gases fit well within the Act's capacious definition of "air pollutant," EPA has statutory authority to regulate emission of such gases from new motor vehicles. That definition—which includes "any air pollution agent . . ., including any physical, chemical, . . . substance . . . emitted into . . . the ambient air . . .," § 7602(g) (emphasis added)--embraces all airborne compounds of whatever stripe. Moreover, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are undoubtedly "physical [and] chemical . . . substance." Ibid. EPA's reliance on postenactment congressional actions and deliberations it views as tantamount to a command to refrain from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is unavailing. Even if postenactment legislative history could shed light on the meaning of an otherwise-unambiguous statute, EPA identifies nothing suggesting that Congress meant to curtail EPA's power to treat greenhouse gases as air pollutants. The Court has no difficulty reconciling Congress' various efforts to promote interagency collaboration and research to better understand climate change with the Agency's pre-existing mandate to regulate "any air pollutant" that may endanger the public welfare. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133, 120 S. Ct. 1291, 146 L. Ed. 2d 121, distinguished. Also unpersuasive is EPA's argument that its regulation of motor-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would require it to tighten mileage standards, a job (according to EPA) that Congress has assigned to the Department of Transportation. The fact that DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA's environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public "health" and "welfare," § 7521(a)(1). Pp. 25-30.
4. EPA's alternative basis for its decision—that even if it has statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it would be unwise to do so at this time—rests on reasoning divorced from the statutory text. While the statute conditions EPA action on its formation of a "judgment," that judgment must relate to whether an air pollutant "cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare." § 7601(a)(1). Under the Act's clear terms, EPA can avoid promulgating regulations only if it determines that greenhouse gases do not contribute to climate change or if it provides some reasonable explanation as to why it cannot or will not exercise its discretion to determine whether they do. It has refused to do so, offering instead a laundry list of reasons not to regulate, including the existence of voluntary Executive Branch programs providing a response to global warming and impairment of the President's ability to negotiate with developing nations to reduce emissions. These policy judgments have nothing to do with whether greenhouse gas emissions contribute to climate change and do not amount to a reasoned justification for declining to form a scientific judgment. Nor can EPA avoid its statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty surrounding various features of climate change and concluding that it would therefore be better not to regulate at this time. If the scientific uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a reasoned judgment, it must say so. The statutory question is whether sufficient information exists for it to make an endangerment finding. Instead, EPA rejected the rulemaking petition based on impermissible considerations. Its action was therefore "arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law," § 7607(d)(9). On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute. Pp. 30-32.)

 

[flacaltenn]

THere is no evidence that "snowpack will decrease" or "disease will spread wildly" because of a 2 degC annual change in Mean Surface Temp.. BTW --- how's this hurricane season goin for ya?

I'm not impressed by the fact that the EPA CONSIDERS CO2 to be a pollutant when the concentration levels of such substance are higher in your lungs than the atmosphere.. When that threshold is crossed - call me to chat.. It's pure political B.S. of the type that DESTROYS the integrity of the whole AGW argument.

 

[Trakar]

THere is no evidence that "snowpack will decrease" or "disease will spread wildly" because of a 2 degC annual change in Mean Surface Temp.. BTW --- how's this hurricane season goin for ya?

I'm not impressed by the fact that the EPA CONSIDERS CO2 to be a pollutant when the concentration levels of such substance are higher in your lungs than the atmosphere.. When that threshold is crossed - call me to chat.. It's pure political B.S. of the type that DESTROYS the integrity of the whole AGW argument.

The EPA is only doing what the conservative controlled supreme court ordered them to do.

 

[flacaltenn]

THere is no evidence that "snowpack will decrease" or "disease will spread wildly" because of a 2 degC annual change in Mean Surface Temp.. BTW --- how's this hurricane season goin for ya?

I'm not impressed by the fact that the EPA CONSIDERS CO2 to be a pollutant when the concentration levels of such substance are higher in your lungs than the atmosphere.. When that threshold is crossed - call me to chat.. It's pure political B.S. of the type that DESTROYS the integrity of the whole AGW argument.

The EPA is only doing what the conservative controlled supreme court ordered them to do.

Exactly -- which is why I'm not a fan of conservatives, leftists or the EPA.. HOWEVER -- I do have high esteem for a Supreme Court -- except when they tackle issues that are BEYOND their expertise. And I PREFER a conservative bent to a court with such powers..

I have just as much trouble watching them wrestle with "electronic tracking devices" or thermal/radar surveillance" or any number of issues that needed to have the science part SETTLED BEFORE anyone wasted the time of these justices..

That CO2 ruling was 5 to 4 -- took NO POSITION on the science AND it stated that EPA was to determine IF CO2 was a public hazard.. So you can't place the blame on them anyway.