EPA Clean Power Plan will drain the economy of U.S. and Nevada

The EPA is inviting states to their own hanging and telling them to bring a rope.

By next summer the states are being told by the EPA to submit plans for compliance with its Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon output from power plants or it will impose its own stringent orders.

According to the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, the EPA proposal will increase the price of electricity in Nevada an average of 18 percent between 2020 and 2029. That’s money that can’t be spent elsewhere on goods and services and to create jobs.

It is unclear whether these calculations take into account the 2013 Legislature’s decision to prematurely shut down all coal-fired power plants in Nevada, a move that already will destroy 2,630 jobs by 2020 and cut real disposable income by $226 million per year, according to one study.

Reid Gardner coal-fired power plant. (Sun photo)

ACCCE says the EPA proposal would drive up the cost of electricity by about $335 billion. It also will increase the price of natural gas for non-generating purposes by $144 billion. The net cost to the economy would be $479 billion between 2017 and 2031.

Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Kenneth Hill, a director of the Tennessee Regulatory Authority, has called on states to ignore the EPA directive to create compliance plans and let it try to impose sanctions. He notes the agency is legally shaky ground. Remember, the court said the feds could not coerce states into expanding Medicaid by denying funds.

“But the problem for the EPA is that the federal government lacks the legal authority under either the Constitution or the Clean Air Act to enforce most of the regulation’s “building blocks” without states’ acquiescence,” Hill writes. “This severely limits the EPA’s ability to tailor a federal plan to a state’s unique needs.”

After all the spending and draining of the economy, what will be the benefit of these new restraints on carbon output? Nil.

There has been no global warming for 17 years, according to NASA data, and the world has warmed only 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit since they started keeping track in 1979. The bulk of that warming came between 1979 and 1998, and since then temperatures have actually dropped.






19 comments on “EPA Clean Power Plan will drain the economy of U.S. and Nevada

  1. agent provocateur says:

    Reblogged this on Nevada State Personnel Watch.

  2. nyp says:

    Right. Global warming is all a hoax.

  3. Just as the progressive socialist left relies on the courts to push their PC agendas…they also rely heavily on regulatory agencies like the EPA to push their pseudo-scientific global warming/climate change…money, power & control grabs. The ones who will be hurt most by this will be the poor, the working poor, the middle class, small business, entrepreneurs & charitable organizations who minister to the least of these. This is definitely a part of the diagnosis of severe Obama Fatigue…

  4. nyp says:

    “How dare the progressive socialist left rely on the courts to push their agenda…” says someone who supports relying on lawsuits to overturn the regulations promulgated by a democratically elected government.

  5. Steve says:

    Good for the goose, good for the gander.
    It’s the playing field used….no other choice.

    AGW alarmists remind me of private sector unions. The unions won the battle by enacting strong national labor law and those unions are really not so necessary anymore.
    Environmentalists won the battles by cleaning up the lakes and rivers and stopping the burning of trash and so on. But, today being all out of things to hold onto that power, those people and organizations have latched onto something that will not be provable until everyone currently alive is long dead and gone…what better faith based scheme could a bureaucrat hope for?

    More money for those IPCC leaders…keep them on the “right” side of the issue. Kick out anyone who dissents. No matter how solid the degrees and backgrounds.

  6. Winston Smith says:

    Gee, DARPA, it must be disheartening to see that NASA’s own data seem to negate AGW. You may have to adopt a new religion, one that doesn’t try to screw people out of their money.

  7. Patrick says:

    Funny that some of the same people who contend that unions have outlived their usefulness because of the battles they’ve won against heinous child labor exploitation, or other labor atrocities, and that the EPA has accomplished all that was necessary with regard to cleaning our environment, are the same people that defend military spending because we must prepare to fight the next war, or that we must be strong to prevent war, or that spending money on preventing war is the only way our “enemies” will understand we’re serious about fighting a war.

    Don’t these people think about the things they say?

  8. Steve says:

    As soon as you can stop other people being aggressive then you will have an argument which holds water.

    Until then, keep building scarecrows.

  9. iShrug says:

    One has only to look to Germany, to see the negative effects of jumping on the renewable bandwagon, and abandoning their nuclear energy program on top of it.

    The WSJ goes into more depth about the effects on the economy.

  10. Rincon says:

    Although Germany is clearly going too far (solar is not suitable in such a cloudy climate and getting rid of existing nuclear facilities is wasteful), isn’t it amazing that their economy seems to be strong anyway? Kind of goes against Conservative theory. That’s OK. No need to let reality disrupt a perfectly good theory.

  11. Steve says:

    Eastman Kodak is a good comparison to Germany.
    When film was bringing in money hand over fist, Kodak could throw all the money it liked at all kinds of things that never had any hope of ROI. Germany is the Eurozone’s strongest economy for many reasons and it can absorb a lot of waste.

  12. Rincon says:

    Germany’s power is expensive at about 36 cents/KWH which is due partly to its renewable costs, scrapping of perfectly good nuclear facilities and the fact that it has very little cheap hydro power. One benefit often ignored is that the increase in renewables allows Germany to be less reliant on Russian gas than previously.

    Now explain why Australia’s electricity costs 30 cents/KWH, as they produce almost all of it with coal and gas, little or none of which is imported. http://www.esaa.com.au/policy/data_and_statistics-_energy_in_australia


    There’s a lot more to the cost of electricity than the kind of fuel.

  13. Athos says:

    We’re too broke to be this stupid. And anyone that thinks that man is the cause of global temperature fluctuations, is not only too stupid, but arrogantly so.

    But it has increased Algores net worth by $300 million. I’m sure he’s given more than 50% to charity, right? And he’s only one player in this con game!

  14. Rincon says:

    So why is Australia’s electricity so expensive? If the question is too hard, then just don’t answer it, like always.

  15. Steve says:

    Oh, sorry. I thought you were answering your own question.
    “There’s a lot more to the cost of electricity than the kind of fuel.”

    Taxes, fees, surcharges and “clean” energy charges make up at least part of those things. I call them “reverse subsidies”.

  16. Rincon says:

    Nice try, but an article by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation says the greatest reason is that the power companies overbuilt their networks, the costs of which are extremely high because although it’s the size of the U.S., Australia has fewer than a tenth the number of people. In many cases, onsite solar power would be cheaper than stringing wires for tens of kilometers for a single ranch, but Australia has resisted. Only about 1.1% of Australia’s electricity is solar, so it’s obvious that the power companies are stringing wires over thousands of kilometers

  17. Steve says:

    Ah…oversupply creates high price!
    Tell that to NV Energy.

  18. Rincon says:

    Adding unnecessary lanes to a highway creates a higher price. The same applies to electricity. Contrary to the Conservative religion, oversupply does not always make cheaper prices, especially when it’s a utility insulated from competition. You also entirely neglected what may be a far more important factor. Trying to send power to the same area as us with less than 1/10 the customers is bound to be expensive.

  19. […] EPA is trying to take control of the air we breathe and the water we […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s