Obama Admin Unveils Most Expensive EPA (Air) Rules: $10 Billion Cost

[Double Trouble]

My AEP bill already went up this year once as it is (not by much, but still went up a tad), I don't really want it to go higher. But really, who does want to pay more for their utilities than they already pay? Cuts into money I might spend on other things that may help drive demand for other things.

Blah.

Yep, the AEP bill went up slightly, but that's nothing compared to what it's going to do.

Nice bit of fearmongering & innuendo.

the only reason bills might "go through the roof" would be from using upgrades as an excuse for gouging

Gouging? You apparently don't know how the utilities regulation works in OH. AEP can't raise consumer rates until they get permission to do so by the PUCO (public utilities commission of OH). The PUCO basically asks them to demonstrate that their costs went up in order to justify the increase. A friend of mine who works in middle management at AEP told me they are going to request permission for a 20 to 25% hike from the PUCO. They will be able to use these regs to demonstrate huge increases in costs, and they'll get their rate increases.... Consumers will pay for it, at a time when few people have extra money available.

, and the bit about job loss is pure hysteria.

Apparently (according to two people who work there), they've circulated communications to the employees that this regulation would force them to make layoffs in 2012. I take that with a grain of salt, but I don't think there's any doubt they are going to have fewer (mostly union) jobs available when the coal fired plants start closing.

Pwer companies can easily borrow at low rates to perform upgrades, amortize the cost of several years, but they'll be claiming otherwise when asking for rate increases, bet on it.

Just because they can borrow money and spread the expense out over years doesn't mean the expense doesn't exist. They will correctly figure the expense into their total income statement, and thus get the PUCO to allow large increases.

but, hey, it's an opportunity to Blame Obama! for something, anything, something bad, something that people can imagine to be real.

Obama gets unfairly blamed for a lot of stuff, but this is squarely on him. It's a political and economic miscalculation IMO, this is one of those things people feel in their wallet right away. With the economy still in the tank, the president can ill afford to alienate a swing state like Ohio (which voted for Obama in 2008 but right now is trending against him).

 

[Double Trouble]

This seems like a no-brainer. Even if the savings are only a small fraction of those predicted and the costs are several times estimates, this still makes a huge amount of long term sense.

Only if you ignore the negative economic impact on several big areas in the US. This might make sense at a time when the economy is booming, but increasing energy costs in a recession is stupid. We've already seen what that does (when the price of gas went up rapidly).

 

[fskimospy]

Only if you ignore the negative economic impact on several big areas in the US. This might make sense at a time when the economy is booming, but increasing energy costs in a recession is stupid. We've already seen what that does (when the price of gas went up rapidly).

Except of course that those areas are already suffering under the economic impact of increased health care costs.

 

[piasabird]

How come we have a law that says we have to use light bulbs with Mercury Content?

Cant Fix Stupid!

 

[fskimospy]

How come we have a law that says we have to use light bulbs with Mercury Content?

Cant Fix Stupid!

HEY GUYS WHY DO WE HAVE URANIUM IN OUR TANK'S ARMOR WHEN URANIUM KILLS PEOPLE!?! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE KILLING THE OTHER GUYS?! CAN'T FIX STUPID!

It's almost like dangerous elements have different risks depending on how they are used.

 

[bfdd]

HEY GUYS WHY DO WE HAVE URANIUM IN OUR TANK'S ARMOR WHEN URANIUM KILLS PEOPLE!?! AREN'T WE SUPPOSED TO BE KILLING THE OTHER GUYS?! CAN'T FIX STUPID!

It's almost like dangerous elements have different risks depending on how they are used.

Yeah, but idiots handle light bulbs and break them ALL THE TIME. I'm just trying to get to the understanding here of why giving some sort of pollutant to idiots who have no clue what the fuck they are even doing is ok, but forcing environmental standards on our industries in which our competitors don't follow... that makes no sense(if it's really going to raise costs in the industry). PS we don't even make those mercury filled bulbs here, so that's more wealth and resources being shipped out of the country. sigh all because some people want to "feel good" they don't care if others can't feed themselves.

 

[Double Trouble]

Except of course that those areas are already suffering under the economic impact of increased health care costs.

That's certainly true, and there is major value in improving health and such, but to do it at the expense of the economy at this point in time is a mistake. I have no doubt there's also savings in health care costs, but I haven't seen anything quantified, a real study measuring the dollars. At this point all I've seen is political hot air about health care savings, but nothing quantified.

 

[theeedude]

That's certainly true, and there is major value in improving health and such, but to do it at the expense of the economy at this point in time is a mistake. I have no doubt there's also savings in health care costs, but I haven't seen anything quantified, a real study measuring the dollars. At this point all I've seen is political hot air about health care savings, but nothing quantified.

Health expenses are also at the expense of the economy. This will create jobs in the present to retrofit these plants, and it will more than pay for itself in the long run. Exactly what we need in a bad economy.

 

[cybrsage]

Why does Obama want the poor to freeze to death in the winter?

 

[fskimospy]

That's certainly true, and there is major value in improving health and such, but to do it at the expense of the economy at this point in time is a mistake. I have no doubt there's also savings in health care costs, but I haven't seen anything quantified, a real study measuring the dollars. At this point all I've seen is political hot air about health care savings, but nothing quantified.

What makes you call EPA estimates 'political hot air'? The people who put them together are career people, not political appointees. Now those in charge can certainly overrule the permanent employees to some extent, but I'm not aware of any of this happening. Do you have some reason to think that the cost savings will not exceed the cost of implementation fairly quickly?

 

[werepossum]

You can google "health costs of coal power." But let's assume they exaggerated by 10 times. Then these upgrades will pay for themselves in 3 years instead of 3 months. So even if the problem is 10 times smaller than they claim in the article, the solution will pay for itself in 3 years and save and improve thousands of people's lives in the process.

LOL Ten times three months is three years? The funny thing is that I could predict your political bent - mindless left wing doctrinaire - just from that one statement, without any political content at all.

Fern, I too am ambivalent about these changes, but Obama did tell us that under his plan, electricity would necessarily skyrocket. In the end I think they might well be good, although given our current economy I wish he had delayed them.

I also wonder about the unintended consequences. How many people will sicken or die because they can't afford electricity for heat or cooling? How many manufacturing jobs will be driven offshore, to be fueled by even dirtier electricity production some of whose byproducts drift into our air? I'd be more comfortable with these changes if we had systems in place to discourage imported goods rather than encouraging them.

 

[werepossum]

Yep, the AEP bill went up slightly, but that's nothing compared to what it's going to do.



Gouging? You apparently don't know how the utilities regulation works in OH. AEP can't raise consumer rates until they get permission to do so by the PUCO (public utilities commission of OH). The PUCO basically asks them to demonstrate that their costs went up in order to justify the increase. A friend of mine who works in middle management at AEP told me they are going to request permission for a 20 to 25% hike from the PUCO. They will be able to use these regs to demonstrate huge increases in costs, and they'll get their rate increases.... Consumers will pay for it, at a time when few people have extra money available.



Apparently (according to two people who work there), they've circulated communications to the employees that this regulation would force them to make layoffs in 2012. I take that with a grain of salt, but I don't think there's any doubt they are going to have fewer (mostly union) jobs available when the coal fired plants start closing.



Just because they can borrow money and spread the expense out over years doesn't mean the expense doesn't exist. They will correctly figure the expense into their total income statement, and thus get the PUCO to allow large increases.



Obama gets unfairly blamed for a lot of stuff, but this is squarely on him. It's a political and economic miscalculation IMO, this is one of those things people feel in their wallet right away. With the economy still in the tank, the president can ill afford to alienate a swing state like Ohio (which voted for Obama in 2008 but right now is trending against him).

You misjudge a politician's level of dishonesty. Obama will drive up the cost of electricity, then demonize those who provide it for his political gain.

 

[Fern]

-snip-

I also wonder about the unintended consequences. How many people will sicken or die because they can't afford electricity for heat or cooling? How many manufacturing jobs will be driven offshore, to be fueled by even dirtier electricity production some of whose byproducts drift into our air? I'd be more comfortable with these changes if we had systems in place to discourage imported goods rather than encouraging them.

Good points.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

Obama demands the poor not be able to afford the electricy needed to heat their homes...Obama wants to kill off the poor!

I want an add showing Obama opening a window, smiling, as a poor family shivers in their home...snow blows in the open window and you see icicles on the inside doorways. A child touches her mother, who falls over stiffly, dead.

The ad would remind me of the one the dems ran where a rep tossed an old lady off a cliff.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yep, the AEP bill went up slightly, but that's nothing compared to what it's going to do.



Gouging? You apparently don't know how the utilities regulation works in OH. AEP can't raise consumer rates until they get permission to do so by the PUCO (public utilities commission of OH). The PUCO basically asks them to demonstrate that their costs went up in order to justify the increase. A friend of mine who works in middle management at AEP told me they are going to request permission for a 20 to 25% hike from the PUCO. They will be able to use these regs to demonstrate huge increases in costs, and they'll get their rate increases.... Consumers will pay for it, at a time when few people have extra money available.



Apparently (according to two people who work there), they've circulated communications to the employees that this regulation would force them to make layoffs in 2012. I take that with a grain of salt, but I don't think there's any doubt they are going to have fewer (mostly union) jobs available when the coal fired plants start closing.



Just because they can borrow money and spread the expense out over years doesn't mean the expense doesn't exist. They will correctly figure the expense into their total income statement, and thus get the PUCO to allow large increases.



Obama gets unfairly blamed for a lot of stuff, but this is squarely on him. It's a political and economic miscalculation IMO, this is one of those things people feel in their wallet right away. With the economy still in the tank, the president can ill afford to alienate a swing state like Ohio (which voted for Obama in 2008 but right now is trending against him).

You're still engaged in a huge amount of projection & prediction of doom over what really isn't that much money. As I pointed out, $10B is only ~$30 per US citizen. The notion that such would justify a rate increase of 25%, as you project, is absurd.

I understand how utility rates work, and I also understand that providers can get almost anything they claim to need from Repub appointees, especially when those appointees & their cronies get to Blame Obama!

Providers devote a small army of accountants & lawyers to getting rate increases, and in the "smaller govt" world of "Pro-business" Repubs, the utilities commission lacks the resources to question the numbers even if they're so inclined.

If building an oil pipeline is supposed to create jobs, how is it that retrofitting electricity plants with improved pollution controls supposed to cut jobs, anyway?

Or are we just attempting to create an attack vector where none really exists, other than in the imagination? Is this kinda like Death Panels? Mediscare? Iraqi WMD's? Birtherism?

 

[bfdd]

Except of course that those areas are already suffering under the economic impact of increased health care costs.

this doesn't directly effect that...

 

[sandorski]

The Daily fluctuations in the price of Oil likely has a potential $10billion cost/savings on the Consumer.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
If building an oil pipeline is supposed to create jobs, how is it that retrofitting electricity plants with improved pollution controls supposed to cut jobs, anyway?

My guess would be that some older, possibly smaller plants will be closed instead of updated.

While they've had since 1990 to deal with this (I know they got extensions), but I have some concern that the 4 yrs deadline may not be enough. Hopefully the power companies have been following this and are prepared. Specifically, I mean that if some power plants must be closed, 4 yrs is likely insufficient to build new ones. Too many permitting requirements, enviro and NIMBY lawsuits etc.

And the point here isn't whether or not power companies 'deserve' this or not, or if there may be HC savings etc. The point is whether it be humanitarian, social or economic reasons we can't afford problems with power generation and supply.

Homeowners, small businesses (heck, for that matter most large businesses) had nothing to do with bringing us to this situation. People need AC and heat, and there are a lot of Prius's around here that need electricity. Energy is one of the life bloods of our economy. I hope this govt action and regulations are better thought-out than most.

Fern

 

[Double Trouble]

What makes you call EPA estimates 'political hot air'? The people who put them together are career people, not political appointees. Now those in charge can certainly overrule the permanent employees to some extent, but I'm not aware of any of this happening. Do you have some reason to think that the cost savings will not exceed the cost of implementation fairly quickly?

You don't think those at the EPA realize where their bread is buttered? They know they'd better make Obama and the dems happy because many republicans want to seriously curtail their activities. The EPA is highly unlikely to ever be in favor of less regulation, they always want more regulation, not less. In this administration they have a friendly audience while in the prior one they had very little say. Of course their numbers will say whatever the administration wants them to say.

Regardless, health care benefits and things like that offer long term benefits, while the costs are going to cause short term problems -- at exactly the wrong time. I'm all for reducing pollution and all that stuff, I just think the timing is terrible, and it's going to cost a ton of money that many can not afford.

I heard an ad on the radio already today "Obama and his EPA are going to drive up your energy bills by 20% next year. Contact your representative and let them know how you feel about it". I expect a TON more of this stuff. When people's bills do go up (and, according to AEP and the analysts, they surely will), Obama is essentially handing the repubs a very effective sledge hammer to use against him in Ohio next year.

 

[sandorski]

You don't think those at the EPA realize where their bread is buttered? They know they'd better make Obama and the dems happy because many republicans want to seriously curtail their activities. The EPA is highly unlikely to ever be in favor of less regulation, they always want more regulation, not less. In this administration they have a friendly audience while in the prior one they had very little say. Of course their numbers will say whatever the administration wants them to say.

Regardless, health care benefits and things like that offer long term benefits, while the costs are going to cause short term problems -- at exactly the wrong time. I'm all for reducing pollution and all that stuff, I just think the timing is terrible, and it's going to cost a ton of money that many can not afford.

I heard an ad on the radio already today "Obama and his EPA are going to drive up your energy bills by 20% next year. Contact your representative and let them know how you feel about it". I expect a TON more of this stuff. When people's bills do go up (and, according to AEP and the analysts, they surely will), Obama is essentially handing the repubs a very effective sledge hammer to use against him in Ohio next year.

Why is the timing terrible? Many of these Companies have tons of Cash and these upgrades will increase Jobs(not a hell of a lot, but increase nevertheless).

 

[SparkyJJO]

The Daily fluctuations in the price of Oil likely has a potential $10billion cost/savings on the Consumer.

And where are you pulling this number from? Thin air again?

 

[sandorski]

And where are you pulling this number from? Thin air again?

Pretty much. On further investigation it's likely closer to $10's of millions(still asstimated), just off by a thousand or so.lol. Nevertheless, $10billion is a drop in the bucket, the cost of which can be recovered over many years.

 

[hal2kilo]

Why is the timing terrible? Many of these Companies have tons of Cash and these upgrades will increase Jobs(not a hell of a lot, but increase nevertheless).

There's plenty of evidence that the inception of EPA rules requiring cleanup of many industries has spurred other businesses which employ lots of people

I grew up in the prime downstream area for all of the electricity that is generated by coal (D.C. suburbs) once in a blue moon in my life did I recall having a clear blue sky. I've since moved to the Northwest and the theme song of "Here Come the Brides" is absolutely true even with whatever the crap is coming over from China.

 

[cybrsage]

And where are you pulling this number from? Thin air again?

Smog filled air would be my guess. 😉

 

[bfdd]

I can see the health cost benefits of reducing smog in the air, but over what time frame are we talking? Are we saving 100 million a year over 40 years? That doesn't seem like a very decent return imo. 10 billion is enough to build a nuke plant, start phasing over to those and all your air will be clean.