energy prices

Obama’s ludicrous, anti-consumer cap and trade regulations aren’t actually about the environment

It’s been overshadowed by the continuing coverage of the Bergdahl-Taliban five swap, but reports began to surface this week that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), at the direction of the White House, has begun pushing new carbon rules on existing coal plants that aim to reduce their emissions by 30% from 2005 levels.

Call it cap and trade by regulatory fiat:

Analysts widely expect the final rule to give states the option of joining or creating cap-and-trade programs, which allow companies to trade credits for emissions. The draft released on Monday does not discuss that possibility.

“There are no commercially viable [carbon capture and storage methods]. That’s why we expect cap-and-trade,” said Michael Ferguson, an associate director at S&P who covers merchant energy producers.

At risk of drawing the ire of the climate change true believers, there was a reason the climate change cap and trade legislation failed a few years back, and it wasn’t because evil, bible-thumping conservatives are convinced mankind has no effect on the environment (for the record, we do. But our carbon emissions, for example, are pretty negligible compared to things like decaying organic matter and volcanoes).

No, it was defeated in the Senate because many Democrats that voted against hailed from states that relied on jobs related to the coal industry. And if there’s one thing that moves a politician, it’s the voice of a united constituency.

But not to be deterred, the Obama administration used the EPA and the Clean Air Act to declare carbon emissions a health hazard that must be regulated:

Today in Liberty: Tea Party picks up a Senate seat, Obama’s war on coal to hit consumers

“President Obama won the youth vote 3 to 1, but I don’t think he’s got a permanent hold on the youth vote. I think if we bring to them that message, that ‘You know what? What you do on your cell phone is none of the government’s damn business.’” — Rand Paul

— Ben Sasse, Tea Party win in Nebraska: Ben Sasse took 49.4 percent of the vote in the Nebraska Republican Senate primary, easily defeating Sid Dinsdale and Shane Obsorn. Sasse was backed by big-name conservative and Tea Party groups, while Osborn had the quiet backing of the Republican establishment. “Congratulations to Ben Sasse on his victory tonight in Nebraska. Ben is a problem solver who will be a conservative voice in our effort to repeal ObamaCare and bring much needed fiscal sanity to the Senate,” said NRSC Chairman Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS). “Ben Sasse is a results-oriented leader whom I know will fight for Nebraska and be a great advocate for the Cornhusker State in the Senate. I look forward to working alongside of Ben in the Senate next year in a Republican majority.” Club for Growth President Chris Chocola hailed Sasse as a champion of economic liberty, noting that he “won a hard-fought primary by building his campaign on the simple idea that ObamaCare is a disaster that needs to be repealed,” adding that “Ben clearly articulated a conservative vision to Nebraska voters who rewarded him with their votes.”

Real world consequences of Obama’s “war on coal”


Back in June, President Barack Obama’s delivered a big speech to announcing new initiatives and regulations to combat climate change. Among the policies, which be enacted through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was tighter regulations on the coal industry.

President Obama has already taken steps to ensure that new coal plants meet strict environmental regulations, though older plants were initially spared. But the new standards set by the administration will result in the closing down of those older plants, which will hinder the United States’ power grid and significant job losses.

But to put the war on coal into perspective, Ashe Schow points to a recent report from Reuters showing that 207 coal plants will shut down over the next 10 years, a loss of nearly a third of all coal plants in the country:

President Obama’s apparent “war on coal” will result in 207 coal plants shuttering their doors over the next decade or so, according to Reuters.

Oklahoma congressman slams Obama’s rule by executive fiat

Jim Birdenstine

With President Barack Obama implementing new climate change regulations through the EPA without the consent of Congress, many Republicans are noting the threat that unilateral executive action represents to our constitutional system of checks-and-balances.

During a speech from the House floor on Friday, Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) cited some examples of President Obama’s unilateralism and noted that it takes the decision making process out of the hands of Congress, the representatives of the people.

“The President decided to raise energy prices on all Americans, which adversely affects the poor the most, and he didn’t ask Congress. The President decided to unilaterally reduce our strategic nuclear deterrent when more countries than ever have nuclear weapons — [with] no treaty that would require consent of the Senate,” said Bridenstine. “The President decided which health insurance plans the people are allowed to have. The President didn’t ask Congress or the people, for that matter. The list goes on.”

“In America, we are either moving more towards liberty or more towards tyranny,” continued Bridenstine. “Well, I think we should ask ourselves what tyranny would look like in the United States of America.”

After recounting some recent events, Bridenstine noted that the result of a president ruling by executive fiat would limit the power of the legislative branch and greatly diminish the representation of the people. “The President told us that he would fundamentally transform America,” he recalled, “and I think that is exactly what he is doing.”

Watch Bridenstine’s remarks below:

Obama’s energy plan means higher prices for consumers

You can’t say President Obama didn’t warn you. When he was running in 2008, Obama warned that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” because of his energy plan.

Thankfully, Congress blocked some of the worst parts of the plan, which would have taken a significant toll on the economy and cost American families $1,761 each year. That, however, hasn’t stopped President Obama from pushing some his policies through executive and regulatory fiat, which completely bypasses the legislative process.

President Obama’s latest energy proposals, which will be implemented by the EPA, continues to show that he has no concern for the costs that are passed on to hard-working Americans.

Writing at, the official blog of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Sean Hackbarth explains that consumers can expect higher energy costs and a less reliable energy grid as a result of the policies.

EPA to impose new emissions rule on coal plants

While Barack Obama says that his administration is concerned about rising energy costs and has an “all of the above” energy plan, the Environmental Protection Agency has imposed new carbon emissions regulations new coal plants:

The Environmental Protection Agency will issue the first limits on greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants as early as Tuesday, according to several people briefed on the proposal. The move could end the construction of conventional coal-fired facilities in the United States.

The proposed rule — years in the making and approved by the White House after months of review — will require any new power plant to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt of electricity produced. The average U.S. natural gas plant, which emits 800 to 850 pounds of CO2 per megawatt, meets that standard; coal plants emit an average of 1,768 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt.

Industry officials and environmentalists said in interviews that the rule, which comes on the heels of tough new requirements that the Obama administration imposed on mercury emissions and cross-state pollution from utilities within the past year, dooms any proposal to build a coal-fired plant that does not have costly carbon controls.

The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.