Obama Weakens EPA Proposed Rule In Order To Promote New Coal Plants – Gets Praise From Enviro’s and Favorable Press

As EPA Bows to Coal Lobby on New Plants, Signals Retreat on Existing Plants

Enviro’s and Media Can’t Tell Capitulation from Leadership

“based on the analysis, EPA anticipates that the proposed EGU New Source GHG Standards will result in negligible CO2 emission changes.”  ~~~ EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of proposal of federal standards for new plants

“the  standards that will be developed for currently operating sources are expected to be different from, and less stringent than, the standards proposed today for future sources”  ~~~ EPA Statement regarding development of federal Guidelines for existing plants

“We are thrilled that the E.P.A. is taking this major step forward in implementing President Obama’s climate action plan,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters,  (via NY Times)

[Update below]

This one is too cynical even for Orwell.

Follow this step by step – I’ll try to hit the high points (but of course, will leave stuff out):

1. Last April (2012), EPA proposed a new rule that effectively would have banned new coal power plants.

Despite the fact that new coal plants were not being built by the private sector for economic reasons (i.e. the current glut of natural gas is far cheaper fuel than coal) and the fact that the proposal ignored several hundred existing coal plants that create 40% of US carbon emissions, the proposal was widely praised by media and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was celebrated as a hero.

The Coal Lobby and the Republicans accused President Obama of waging a “War on Coal”. Coal state Democrats also raised objections.

2. Environmental groups spend time and money to mobilize public support for the proposed rule, generating over 2 million comments in favor of the proposal.

3. There is virtually NO MENTION of climate change during the campaign by the President or the national media. Environmental groups make no demands and shut up and back the President’s re-election efforts.

4. Seven months later, in November, President Obama is re-elected to a second term.

5. In his January Inaugural Address, Obama surprises everyone and makes page one news with his emphasis on the need to address climate change, something he was silent on during the campaign:

We, the people, still believe that our obligations as Americans are not just to ourselves, but to all posterity.  We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.  (Applause.)  Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and more powerful storms.

The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult.  But America cannot resist this transition, we must lead it.  We cannot cede to other nations the technology that will power new jobs and new industries, we must claim its promise.  That’s how we will maintain our economic vitality and our national treasure — our forests and waterways, our crop lands and snow-capped peaks.  That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.  That’s what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared.

6. In February, Obama  doubled down on his Inaugural remarks, in his State of the Union Address warning Congress that he would take Executive action on climate change, if Congress failed to act:

But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change, and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy.

7. Ooops, a year later, in April 2013, Obama signals a retreat: (NY Times)

The Environmental Protection Agency said Friday that it would delay issuance of a new rule limiting emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new power plants after the electric power industry objected on legal and technical grounds.

8. More than 17 months goes by after EPA’s April 2012 proposal, as EPA reviews and responds to more than 2.5 million public comments overwhelmingly in favor of the proposal.

9. All sorts of climate “extreme weather” disasters continue to proliferate across the country, including Hurricane Sandy, massive western wildfires, droughts, and floods.

10. After all this, yesterday, EPA withdrew the April 2012 proposed rule for NEW POWER PLANTS and sent a very weak message about regulating emissions  from EXISTING COAL PLANTS .

11. The new EPA Administrator explained that the reason EPA withdrew the rule is because it did not consider and would not allow new coal power plants: (WaPo story):

“We’re providing at least some certainty here that [coal plants] have an opportunity to be around in a carbon-constrained world,” McCarthy said in an interview. “The president wants every fuel to be able to compete in a clean environment.”

12. The same day EPA withdrew the April 2012 proposal, EPA proposed a new rule.

This new rule is substantively weaker that the prior proposal, includes weaker emission limits for new coal plants, and specifically “provides regulatory certainly” to accommodate new coal power plants.

The final adoption date is put off unit 2017, injecting several years of delay and allowing proposed new coal plants in the permitting pipeline to be “transitioned” from and evade compliance with the new regulation.

13. The EPA “Regulatory Impact Analysis” on the new proposal says it will cost little to nothing to comply with the rule and have little to no impact on carbon emissions.

14. At the same time EPA announces the withdrawal and new proposal, EPA issues an unbelievably bad statement that sends an extraordinarily weak signal about beginning a “stakeholder process” to develop new rules for existing power plants.

EPA bent over backwards to emphasize key weaknesses: a) this new rule for existing plants may be “less stringent” than the just proposed new plant standard; b) STATES will be in charge of setting state specific standards; c) economics will play a huge role; and d) this process is just beginning and will play out for years:

Existing power plants

Standards for currently operating plants are set through a federal-state partnership that includes federal guidelines and state plans to set and implement performance standards. Reflecting the significant differences between currently operating sources and those not yet built, the standards that will be developed for currently operating sources are expected to be different from, and less stringent than, the standards proposed today for future sources. Over the coming months, EPA will be engaging with states and a diverse set of partners, including the power sector, environmental groups, and the public, to identify innovative, pragmatic approaches that build on the leadership that many states have already shown to cut carbon pollution from the power sector.

I’m sure coal intensive and coal plant reliant states have made great progress and will make much more progress in strictly and “pragmatically” regulating coal! (that’s snark).

15. The EPA withdrawal and re-proposal announcement was made a high profile event by the Obama Administration, including an EPA press release touting ” Agency takes important step to reduce carbon pollution from power plants as part of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan”.

Important step? WTF?

EPA’s own Regulatory Impact Analysis exposes that lie:

“based on the analysis, EPA anticipates that the proposed EGU New Source GHG Standards will result in negligible CO2 emission changes”

But I guess reporters and beltway environmental sycophants don’t understand regulations and don’t read those kind of documents. NY Times story:

“We are thrilled that the E.P.A. is taking this major step forward in implementing President Obama’s climate action plan,” said Tiernan Sittenfeld, a senior vice president at the League of Conservation Voters, in anticipation of Ms. McCarthy’s announcement. “It’s a great day for public heath and a clean energy future.”

As part of EPA’s PR campaign, EPA Administrator wrote an Op-Ed’s rollout announcing that it’s “Time to Act on Climate Change“ (exactly as she does the opposite and delays and weakens any EPA action).

The EPA PR rollout came on Thursday and Friday, timed perfectly to drive away press from a major 350.org climate change protest “Drawing the line” on the Keystone XL Pipeline.

So, what is the response to this?

• Obama and EPA are praised by environmental groups for leadership and taking action on climate change.
• Obama and EPA get tons of favorable press for taking strong regulatory action on climate change.
• The Coal Lobby and Republicans remain in attack mode.
• There is no impact on current emissions or plans for future emissions from the energy sector.
• The 350.org protest “Drawing a line” on KXL basically gets ignored by media.

The world is completely upside down.

[Update: 9/23/13 – today’s NJ Spotlight storygets it mostly right, despite Jeff Tittel’s closing spin.

Here’s my comment on it, which left out the issues of recent lifecycle assessment studies that show natural gas has as great or greater global warming potential as coal, when full lifecycle emissions are taken into consideration:

Good article – thanks to Mr. Johnson, NJ Spotlight is one of the very few media outlets that did not get played by Obama EPA spin on this.

Important point were neglected, however:

1. the EPA proposed a STRONGER rule in April 2012 on new plants. That rule was opposed by the coal lobby and Republicans. After years of work by EPA and 2.5 million public comments in favor of the rule, EPA backed down and withdrew that proposal and was forced by the Obama WH to re-propose a weaker rule, explicitly, according to EPA Administrator and the regulatory documents, to “provide certainty” to accommodate new coal plants.

2. Nationally, regardless of the cheerleading by environmental groups, the proposal will have little to no impact on reducing GHG emissions:

“based on the analysis, EPA anticipates that the proposed EGU New Source GHG Standards will result in negligible CO2 emission changes.” ~~~ EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis of proposal of federal standards for new plants

3. EPA also issued a statement regarding the development of the more controversial standard for existing coal plants. That EPA statement signaled political and technical weakness by emphasizing the lead role of states; that existing plants would be subject to less stringent standards; and that cost of compliance would be given huge consideration in a “pragmatic” federal; Guideline and State SIP’s:

“the standards that will be developed for currently operating sources are expected to be different from, and less stringent than, the standards proposed today for future sources” ~~~ EPA Statement regarding development of federal Guidelines for existing plants