There is no bill and even if there was Pam Bondi wouldn't be signing it, she's an attorney general. What she did do was join 26 other states suing the EPA regarding its regulations in accordance with the Clean Power Plan. Legally there's an issue with which provision of the Clean Air Act being used to enforce regulations. It's long been established that industries cannot be subject to multiple sections of the Clean Air Act.
The Clean Power Plan was devised in concert with environmental groups and states supporting the initiative; i.e., states with economies not substantially affected by coal production or a heavy footprint of coal generation. The EPA is disingenuous when they claim that the Clean Power Plan doesn't mandate the retirement of coal generation. The Plan doesn't specifically call for coal generation decommissioning, but there is no way to meet the emissions targets without doing so. It's doublespeak.
The EPA also throws around the word 'affordable' when discussing impact to consumers. I think this is intentional obfuscation since everyone involved understands that rates will necessarily increase. Nobody ever states what 'affordable' means.
The above does not mean that I am a climate science denier. All one has to do is consider conditions on the surface of Venus to see the results. That said, I think there is a lot of unnecessary doom and gloom associated with predictions and how soon we'll kill off the species if I continue to crank up my lawnmower.
I agree that we need to limit CO2 emissions; however, I am adamantly opposed to providing solutions without proper engagement of everyone affected. The EPA handing down regulations and waving a hand at the states saying they have the flexibility to meet the regulations while preserving reliability and affordability is bullshit. Easier said than done. The emissions reductions proposed can be achieved in 15 years, but not without real costs that will be passed on to rate payers.
- Capital expense for cleaner replacement generation
- Will the government fast track permitting for new generation? Including nuclear?
- Will the government subsidize the write off of abandoned value of plants decommissioned early? Either way, the taxpayer/consumer will have to pony up.
- What about the people that will lose their jobs? Are we going to subsidize educational benefits, early retirement, relocation? I doubt it.
- What about regions where the economy is heavily dependent on coal production? The choice is to help provide a solution or cut the chord and wish them well. There's a cost associated with this.
The Clean Power Plan is as much Energy Theater as the TSA is security theater. It's mostly hyperbolic bullshit.
The energy industry and state governments most affected by the coal specifically need to come to the table with reasonable solutions. Emissions must be curtailed, but must be done so responsibly with everything considered. There will be a cost, that's unavoidable. The specific solutions must be understood to give the public the knowledge of what to expect in rate/tax increases.
Having recently returned to Florida after leaving 27 years ago I support Bondi's decision to join the lawsuit, despite the fact that she and Rick Scott seem to be deniers (or at least play one on TV).
The Clean Power Plan was devised in concert with environmental groups and states supporting the initiative; i.e., states with economies not substantially affected by coal production or a heavy footprint of coal generation. The EPA is disingenuous when they claim that the Clean Power Plan doesn't mandate the retirement of coal generation. The Plan doesn't specifically call for coal generation decommissioning, but there is no way to meet the emissions targets without doing so. It's doublespeak.
The EPA also throws around the word 'affordable' when discussing impact to consumers. I think this is intentional obfuscation since everyone involved understands that rates will necessarily increase. Nobody ever states what 'affordable' means.
The above does not mean that I am a climate science denier. All one has to do is consider conditions on the surface of Venus to see the results. That said, I think there is a lot of unnecessary doom and gloom associated with predictions and how soon we'll kill off the species if I continue to crank up my lawnmower.
I agree that we need to limit CO2 emissions; however, I am adamantly opposed to providing solutions without proper engagement of everyone affected. The EPA handing down regulations and waving a hand at the states saying they have the flexibility to meet the regulations while preserving reliability and affordability is bullshit. Easier said than done. The emissions reductions proposed can be achieved in 15 years, but not without real costs that will be passed on to rate payers.
- Capital expense for cleaner replacement generation
- Will the government fast track permitting for new generation? Including nuclear?
- Will the government subsidize the write off of abandoned value of plants decommissioned early? Either way, the taxpayer/consumer will have to pony up.
- What about the people that will lose their jobs? Are we going to subsidize educational benefits, early retirement, relocation? I doubt it.
- What about regions where the economy is heavily dependent on coal production? The choice is to help provide a solution or cut the chord and wish them well. There's a cost associated with this.
The Clean Power Plan is as much Energy Theater as the TSA is security theater. It's mostly hyperbolic bullshit.
The energy industry and state governments most affected by the coal specifically need to come to the table with reasonable solutions. Emissions must be curtailed, but must be done so responsibly with everything considered. There will be a cost, that's unavoidable. The specific solutions must be understood to give the public the knowledge of what to expect in rate/tax increases.
Having recently returned to Florida after leaving 27 years ago I support Bondi's decision to join the lawsuit, despite the fact that she and Rick Scott seem to be deniers (or at least play one on TV).
