When I read the Wall Street Journal’s Aug. 2, commentary, “States Should Shun the EPA’s New Power Mandate,” a report on the Clean Power Plan, I was reminded of the years of letters to the editor and opinion pieces in my Michigan hometown newspaper, mostly by those opposing coal-generated energy. They had bought into the health and climate change scare tactics of environmentalists and the Obama administration.
The much-maligned James De Young coal-fired power plant in Holland, Michigan. The NAACP called it an “environmental justice offender. (Mark Copier photo)
In 2012, a spokesman for Green America signaled the proposed EPA rules as “good news.” Citing questionable statistics that coal-fired plants were the cause of four out of the five leading causes of mortality in the U.S., he said the carbon emissions were responsible for billions of dollars in health care costs.
Advocates have said the move to renewable energy was going to create thousands of new Michigan jobs and reduce pollution “without significantly increasing energy prices.” Where have I heard this before?
Surely, I thought, Michigan residents would be rejoicing in the Supreme Court’s June 29, slapping down of the EPA’s 2012 rule in Michigan v. EPA, stipulating that the agency had failed its legal obligation to compare the cost of its mercury standards with the benefits.
The EPA attempted to ignore the cost and circumvent the act’s outline to eliminate coal-fired power plants disfavored by the Obama administration. And while the aim was to regulate the hazard of emissions, it was to have basically no impact on human health and a trivial impact on climate.
Unfortunately, the court’s decision will have no bearing on the legality of the EPA’s new Clean Power Plan, which depends on the states to bow to plans drawn up by the EPA; plans that cuts the use of coal, making energy more expensive. A coalition of 15 states is planning to sue the EPA over the flawed Clean Power Plan.
Without the go-along by the states, the EPA’s carbon reduction target will be difficult to achieve. A number of states have already indicated they will not bow to the EPA demands, calculating that cost would be higher than declining to do so. It is anticipated that the concessions the EPA makes to some states and industries will come at the expense of others. Isn’t that just peachy? More redistribution of wealth.
The Clean Power Plan will cost $366 billion and bring double-digit electricity rate increases to 43 states. And there’s a concern that the nation’s electric grid could be weakened as power plants are forced to close before new ones can be built, according to the Journal.
Having just returned from Michigan, I can report that the tree huggers got their way. Construction of natural gas power plant is underway, as huge heat-recovery steam generators have arrived by water from South Korea under a $12.2 million contract along with $46 million worth of turbines from the Czech Republic and Sweden.
The local board of public works claims to have listened to the voices of the community and has had “very positive support.” And as construction continues, they will be able to watch their investment from an ADA-compliant observation deck. Surely they are aware that the Obama administration is now out to restrict emissions from – you guessed it – natural gas, in its endeavor to destroy the fossil-fuel industry, and again they cite health issues like asthma.
With nine power plants on the chopping block, Citizens for Michigan’s Energy Future, a non-profit organization, is running TV spots opposing the outside influences on the closing Michigan power plants without referring to the culprit, the EPA. A weak effort.
Finally, while President Obama wants to be the Grand Poobah at the December climate change conference in Paris, Michigan’s Rep. Fred Upton, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, continues to stand up against the overreaching regulations of the EPA.
Our only hope is that a Republican will return to the White House in 2016 and the out of control EPA is reigned-in.
