RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
AUGUST 31, 2010 | Commentary by ELIZABETH STELLE
Traditional Energy Fuels Pennsylvania's Economy
Pennsylvania has always been a leading provider of America's energy. From timber and coal to the nation's first commercial oil well, and now the Marcellus Shale boom, traditional energy is vital to our state's economy. But these industries, and the prosperity that accompanied them, are now threatened because they have become politically
JUNE 11, 2010 | Testimony by NATHAN BENEFIELD, KATRINA CURRIE
Green Jobs and the Broken Window Fallacy
Testimony to the Pennsylvania House Republican Policy Committee
This concept applies to the "green jobs" craze gripping lawmakers. Green jobs, i.e., jobs in wind, solar, and other alternative energies, are in and of themselves a good thing. But when government attempts to pick winners and losers-by identifying which industries are "green" or "good" and subsidizing them at taxpayers' expense, mand
MAY 12, 2010 | Commentary by KATRINA CURRIE
Green Jobs Destroy Good Jobs
With Pennsylvania's unemployment rate at a 25-year high, Gov. Rendell is pushing "green jobs" at every turn. He has doled out nearly $1 billion to renewable energy projects and wants additional alternative energy mandates. In reality, these mandates and subsidies will result in a net loss of jobs and necessarily escalate electricity prices.
Recent Blog Posts
AUGUST 22, 2011
EPA Regs Kill PA Jobs
Cap and Trade may be officially dead in Congress but the EPA is busy resurrecting it in a far more disastrous policy agenda that kills thousands of Pennsylvania jobs and send electricity rates through the roof.
The first of these regulations is called the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). Finalized on July 7th, the mandate will affect coal and gas fired electric plants in 27, mostly eastern, states by reducing the transport of pollutants, like Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Oxide (NOx).
In Pennsylvania, power plants must reduce emissions of SO2 by 33 percent and NOx by 10 percent in the next six months. The mandate ignores the reality that major power plant systems are required to reduce emissions, like scrubbers, which could take more than four years from design to installation to accomplish.
On top of an unreasonable timeline, the EPA is trampling over state sovereignty by skipping the traditional State Implementation Plans and directly imposing federal rules on utilities, which some believe is a clear violation of the law.
Why rush when industry is already complying with current standards to reduce pollution? According to U.S. Energy Information Administration, the US cut SO2 emissions 50 percent between 2000 and 2009. And NOx emissions have been cut from 5.6 million to 2.3 million in the same time.
The CSPAR rule along with another regulation, called the Utility MACT rule, is estimated to cost 59,000 jobs in Pennsylvania from 2013 to 2020 and increase electricity rates by an average of 13 to 17 percent as utilities shutdown or idle plants to meet emission requirements.
Nationally, the Brattle Group found that the cost of investing in scrubbers and Selective Catalytic Reduction units across the country could run up to $120 billion by 2015. Even the EPA's extremely conservative cost estimate indicates that the price could be $2.8 billion annually, with $2.2 billion borne by consumers each year.
The only justification for these measures is a bunch of highly speculative and so far unproven death statistics that will undoubtedly wreak havoc on the energy industry.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 05:10 PM | 0 comment
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
