JANUARY 24, 2011

EPA Could Cost PA 350,000 Jobs

While cap-and-trade died last year, the nationwide regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission began earlier this month, via the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) new GHG permits. For clean "green" energy advocates, the EPA has become the vehicle for accomplishing their policy agenda, as the agency considers new regulations on the power sector beyond GHG emissions.

Among the many new EPA policies to watch for this year, is the revision of ozone standards, expected to be finalized by the EPA this summer.

A study by the Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI estimated EPA's proposed revision would cost the commonwealth 351,207 jobs and over $85 billion by 2020—the fifth highest compliance costs in the nation, severely impacting Pennsylvania's economy.

While current ozone levels presents a reasonably small public health risk, the proposed regulations could have a far greater negative impact on citizen's health. As Marlo Lewis states:

Moreover, because people use income to enhance their health and safety, regulations that destroy jobs, lower wages, and increase the cost of consumer products can literally be lethal. Spare-no-expense, health-at-any-cost regulation ignores the obvious connection between livelihoods, living standards, and life expectancy.

You can find a list of other environmental and energy policies expected to gain momentum in 2011 here.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 03:36 PM | 0 comment

AUGUST 31, 2010

Coal Faces an Onslaught of New Regulations

Debate over new regulations by the EPA puts the Pennsylvania coal industry at a crossroads. Last week, experts met in Philadelphia to discuss a new ruling known as the Clean Air Interstate Rule. The measure requires 31 states, from Massachusetts to Texas, to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions from 2005 levels by 71% and nitrogen oxide emissions by 52% by 2014.

The impact on the coal industry would be significant, forcing many small and older coal-fired generation plants to close. Doug Biden, President of the Electric Power Generation Association, noted about 65% of Pennsylvania's coal-fired electricity capacity already meets or exceeds the standards set forth by the EPA; however, older and smaller plants do not.

While the Philadelphia Inquirer touts the new ruling as a way to save billions on health care costs brought on by asthma and other lung problems, there are also significant disadvantages. The new regulations are expected to cost plants in Pennsylvania a total of $2.8 billion dollars, an insurmountable amount for some of the state's oldest plants. And companies contend the actual cost of regulations will be much higher.

It's likely that over time, the industry would have closed older plants and continued upgrades. For example, PPL recently spent $1.4 billion for pollution controls on its 1961 plant in York County and Montour plant built in 1972. Sulphur dioxide emissions at Montour fell 88% - from 128,000 tons in 2007 to 15,000 tons in 2009.

But forcing large emission reductions immediately will not only result in lost jobs, as plants close, but higher electricity prices -- hurting all businesses. Jeff Holmstead, a former EPA official who authored the original interstate rule, said it was not clear whether utilities will be able meet the new standards while still providing affordable and reliable electric power.

See my commentary today on the inconsistency of punishing traditional energy while offering corporate welfare for alternative energy.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 01:30 PM | 0 comment

JULY 8, 2010

New EPA Rules Will Increase Electricity Costs

Only a few weeks after the failure of the Murkowski resolution to block the EPA's power grab, the agency is seeking approval of a new regulation that could significantly increase the cost of electricity in Pennsylvania.

The new Clean Air Interstate rule seeks to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 71%, from 2005 levels, by 2014 and nitrogen oxide levels by 52%. Beginning in 2012, the program would cost nearly $3 billion a year to operate, but the EPA says improved health from reducing emissions would save billions in health care dollars.

Coal power plants will incur new expenses for new equipment (like scrubbers) or by closing old plants to comply with the regulations. Either way it's consumers who will pay for it, as electricity becomes more expensive.

Dan Riedinger, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, summed it up saying,

[The standard] leaves the power sector exposed to a great deal of regulatory uncertainty.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 10:19 AM | 2 comments

JUNE 14, 2010

PA Senators Effectively Support Job-Killing Cap & Trade

Last week, the United States Senate voted on legislation that would have stopped the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, 53 Senators, including Pennsylvania's Casey and Specter, voted to support the EPA's power grab.

The Obama administration has successfully circumvented the legislative process by allowing the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. These new mandates will begin to phase in next year. Similar to Cap and Trade, these regulations will burden Pennsylvanians with higher energy costs. Because Pennsylvania is a large coal producer, this regulation could cost the state an estimated 40,000 jobs.

You can read more about the EPA's new regulations here.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 10:25 AM | 0 comment

MAY 7, 2010

What about Jobs of Other Colors?

A report by Energy Ventures Analysis set straight erroneous claims made by Black and Veatch's assessment of HB 80 and its sister bill in the PA Senate, SB92.

The deceptive B&V study concluded that increased alternative energy mandates would boast Pennsylvania's economy and create thousands of new "green jobs". This study has been used by those that would profit from alternative energy mandates to lobby for more.

Below are the major flaws Energy Ventures Analysis found with these claims.

Renewable Cost and Generation

• The B&V study dramatically understates Pennsylvania's wind and solar PV renewable production costs and thereby significantly understates the ratepayer costs to expand the Alternative Energy Portfolio Standards (AEPS).

• The report incorporates an escalating carbon penalty starting at $18/ton CO₂ in 2012 and reaching $50/ton in 2026. By adding a large carbon penalty to conventional coal and natural gas-fueled generation, the study makes renewables appear more cost-competitive but still much higher cost.

• B&V calculates that increasing the AEPS would increase cumulative present value costs by $1.6 billion from the assumed Fossil Fuel Only (FFO) prices over the course of the forecasting period (2010-2026). Without discounting, the ratepayer expanded AEPS compliance cumulative cost will reach $6.3 billion ($12.7 billion without carbon penalty) or an average price increase of $2.27/MWh.

Job Creation

• B&V projects that the expanded AEPS policy would create 129,000 job-years of new employment over the study period (2010-2026). Using cumulative job-years in lieu of average annual construction and operation jobs misrepresents the actual job impact. If averaged across the 17-year study period, the projected 129,000 cumulative job-years translates to only 7,571 sustainable jobs - 65 percent are attributable to ongoing construction jobs.

• B&V significantly overstate the policy's overall job creation impact by 260 percent. Relying on published DOE studies, EVA's independent estimated employment from an expanded AEPS policy would create only a net 2,084 sustainable direct and indirect jobs.

• B&V significantly understates the Pennsylvania employment impact from coal generation. By excluding labor associated with coal mining, coal transportation and byproduct disposal. This flaw results in underestimating fossil fuel employment and overstating net employment gains from the expanded AEPS.

You can find Energy Ventures Analysis complete report here.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 09:43 AM | 0 comment

APRIL 22, 2010

Climate Debate Fact Check

During a climate change policy debate between CF's Matt Brouillette and PennFuture's Jan Jarrett, Jarrett gave the audience some misleading statements which I think should be addressed.

First, Jarrett touted a study that sites the proposed House Bill 80 legislation as a job creating and cost savings bills.

• This study however is based on faulty assumptions that even the authors admit are likely flawed, such as the passage of the federal 'cap and trade' legislation, along with significant subsidies to alternative fuels.

Next, Jarrett stated she believes we need a variety of energy sources.

• Jarrett has a very narrow definition of what this variety of resources should be, lobbying against both nuclear power and natural gas. The reality is Pennsylvania cannot run on alternative sources that have to be heavily subsidized to exist.

Finally, Jarrett stated traditional energy sources get subsidies and renewable energy must also get subsidies to level the playing field.

• Below is a chart using the most up-to-date information from the EIA; solar energy receives 55 times more subsidies per MWH than coal, likewise, and wind receives 52 times more than coal. Does the playing field look level? Alternative Energy like solar or wind would not exist if they weren't being held up by tax dollars.
  

Energy Source and Subsidy

You can read more about the debate here.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 03:38 PM | 0 comment

DECEMBER 16, 2009

Cap and Trade Creates Green Jobs, Destroys Others

It is true that if the government levies heavy taxes on carbon dioxide emissions and then provides grants, subsidies, and tax credits to renewable resource development, it will create more jobs in such fields. However, what you will not do is create a net gain in jobs.

As Josh Barro from the Manhattan Institute points out, as green jobs are created, layoffs in carbon-intensive fields will simultaneously occur, resulting in a net loss of jobs. The Brookings Institute predicts Cap and Trade will reduce employment in coal-related industries by over 40% and crude oil-related industries by 35%.

Barro is correct when he says "But whatever it is, Cap and Trade is not a jobs program... true economic recovery will only come when the Administration realizes that regulations does not create jobs."

For some more on the myths of "Green Jobs," check our our PolicyPoints on Alternative Energy Mandates.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 02:16 PM | 0 comment

OCTOBER 23, 2009

Time to Eat the Dog

According to a book by Brenda and Robert Vale; dogs equivalent to the size of German Shepherds have the same "carbon footprint" as a typical SUV driving 10,000 miles/year.

"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

Cat and hamster owners don't get off much easier, according to the Vale's work; cats are only slightly less damaging to the environment than a Volkswagen Golf and owning two hamsters release the same amount of greenhouse gases as owning a plasma TV.

The Vale's say they are not advocating anyone actually eat their dog but rather people own edible pets, like pigs and chickens to reduce their environment impacts.

As absurd as it seems to reduce our pet's carbon footprints, it may not be so far fetch.  Many have already suggesting having fewer children. Coined as "Cap and Trade on Babies," carbon credits would be given to families with only one child as an incentive to keep families small, reducing the population, and thus  lowering future CO2 emissions.  An environmental reporter for the New York Times, Andrew Revkin said "The single most concrete, substantive thing a young American could do is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids."

We may well be entering an era where every aspect of our lives could be regulated due to a fear of CO2 emissions.

posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 00:24 PM | 2 comments

SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

Cap-and-Trade Threatens Pennsylvania Agriculture

The PA Farm Bureau recently released an article in the September edition of Country Focus illustrating the stifling effects Waxman-Markey legislation will have on rural farming communities across Pennsylvania.

While Cap-and-Trade will dramatically raise the cost of every household's energy bills, farmers are especially hard hit by skyrocketing fertilizer prices and higher operating costs for their equipment. The Farm Bureau also notes that without any alternative energy sources in place to power America's farms, Waxman-Markey is putting the entire agriculture industry in jeopardy. Moreover, putting a cap on carbon emissions without ensuring the same in high-carbon output nations like India and China will accomplish nothing but place a virtual tariff on American goods.

With family farms already in danger due to the unstable economy, can we really afford to increase their burden?

posted by MICHAEL NEROZZI | 03:15 PM | 0 comment