Obama’s Plan to Bankrupt the Coal Industry

[SurferGirl]

I think we are still paying extra for the Enron fiasco.

[Advertisement]

[Jolie Rouge]

We all need to start cutting wood for the fireplace now.

Come on down to the Gulf Coast ... we have lots of "Free Firewood - U Cut"

[anothersta]

I think we are still paying extra for the Enron fiasco.

What a mess that was! I'm guessing it was no fun. I dont' think most people understand what Enron was doing.

Brief explanation: They were trading electic energy. Much like BHO wants to auction cap and trade credits. They had connections with the power plants and they were able to hold out on energy until the Californians were willing to pay top dollar, then they would release the energy to them.

Drove electric prices through the roof, caused blackouts, eventually caused the end of Enron. cooking the books helped bring the end.

[Jolie Rouge]

[Jolie Rouge]

New rules would cut thousands of coal jobs
Tim Huber, Ap Business Writer – 14 mins ago

CHARLESTON, W.Va. – The Obama administration's own experts estimate their proposal for protecting streams from coal mining would eliminate thousands of jobs and slash production across much of the country, according to a government document obtained by The Associated Press.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement document says the agency's preferred rules would impose standards for water quality and restrictions on mining methods that would affect the quality or quantity of streams near coal mines. The rules are supposed to replace Bush-era regulations that set up buffer zones around streams and were aimed chiefly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia.

OSM's proposal — part of a draft environmental impact statement — would affect coal mines from Louisiana to Alaska.

The office, a branch of the Interior Department, estimated that the protections would trim coal production to the point that an estimated 7,000 of the nation's 80,600 coal mining jobs would be lost. Production would decrease or stay flat in 22 states, but climb 15 percent in North Dakota, Wyoming and Montana.

An OSM spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The agency maintains in the document that its proposal "attempts to balance the protection of natural resources with imposing a reasonable administrative and economic burden on the coal mining industry."

The National Mining Association blasted the proposal, saying OSM is vastly underestimating the economic impact. "OSM's preferred alternative will destroy tens of thousands of coal-related jobs across the country from Appalachia to Alaska and Illinois to Texas with no demonstrated benefit to the environment," the trade group said in a statement. "OSM's own analysis provides a very conservative estimate of jobs that will be eliminated, incomes that will be lost and state revenues that will be foregone at both surface and underground coal mining operations."

OSM has submitted the proposal to several coal producing states for feedback before it releases proposed regulations by the end of February.

The states aren't happy with what they've seen. They blasted the proposal as "nonsensical and difficult to follow" in a Nov. 23 letter to OSM director Joe Pizarchik. The letter was signed by officials from Alabama, Indiana, Kentucky, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming. "Neither the environmental impact statement nor the administrative record that OSM has developed over 30-plus year of regulation ... justify the sweeping changes that they're proposing to make," West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection official Thomas Clarke told the Associated Press on Wednesday. "I've had OSM technical people who are concerned with stream impacts and outside contractors for OSM who are subcontractors on the EIS give me their opinion that the whole thing's a bunch of junk."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110126/...s_mining_rules


“Clean Energy” Jobs

The President apparently has dropped the term “green jobs” and instead has adopted the new term “clean energy” jobs. New words, same failed ideas.

Spain provides a case in point. With a world-leading quantity of both wind and solar electricity (both highly subsidized), Spain’s green-job creation should be second to none. However a study by Spanish economist Dr. Gabriel Calzada found 2.2 conventional jobs were destroyed for each green job created. This finding is consistent with Spain’s overall employment situation. At 19.4 percent, Spain’s latest unemployment rate is nearly double that of not only the United States (10.0 percent) but it is also nearly double the rate for Spain’s European neighbors, France (10.0 percent) and Portugal (9.8 percent).

Budget-busting subsidies and ham-fisted regulations will not help end the recession. Instead, they will shrink economic activity and prolong the recovery.

-David Kreutzer -Heritage

----

[Jolie Rouge]

Obama's Energy Plan Will Stall Growth
Feb 11, 2011 – 5:00 AM

It's unfortunate for all Americans that instead of trying to bring our citizens together to find solutions to tomorrow's energy needs, President Barack Obama is expected in his proposed federal budget Monday to call for higher taxes on the oil industry -- and pretend that American consumers won't suffer as a result. Hold on to your wallets.

In his budget proposal, the president is expected to fill in the numbers behind this statement he made in his State of the Union address: "I'm asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies."

If American taxpayers paid billions of dollars in taxes to subsidize oil companies, they'd have every right to want to put a stop to it. But no such subsidies exist. American taxpayers fork over $6 billion a year in subsidies to corn ethanol, and billions more in subsidies to solar energy, wind energy and electric cars (a subsidy of up to $7,500 per vehicle). But none to the oil industry.

Like other American businesses, oil companies get tax deductions for the products they produce and the jobs they create. But describing this as money that taxpayers "give to oil companies" is simply not accurate. If every tax deduction is considered a government giveaway of taxpayer dollars, then every taxpayer is a recipient of such giveaways, because we all get deductions. When President Obama talks about eliminating "the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies," he is really talking about raising taxes on petroleum, which will raise the cost of gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel, home heating oil and the raw material used to manufacture petrochemicals used in thousands of products.

That means all these fuels and products will cost more.

The president says that by raising taxes on oil and gas, we can "invest" that money in new, clean forms of energy. As he put it, "Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's."

President Obama spoke frequently in his State of the Union address of the importance of "innovation" to advance our economy. But taxing an existing form of energy while offering unending government support for untested technologies unable to survive on their own is not the way to drive innovation.

Think about it: America moved from horse-drawn carriages to cars not because the government decided to raise taxes on horses so it could subsidize cars, but because of innovations by American manufacturers. In the same way, whale-oil lamps weren't taxed to subsidize electric lights, typewriters weren't taxed to subsidize computers, and libraries and bookstores weren't taxed to subsidize Google.

While President Obama set job creation and economic growth as top priorities, his attack on the petroleum industry would do the exact opposite -- destroying jobs instead of creating them, raising costs for consumers instead of lowering them and requiring billions in taxpayer dollars to prop up new sources of energy.

It makes no sense to destroy existing jobs held by hard-working Americans today in hopes of creating new jobs that may never materialize tomorrow. We need to grow our economy and increase the number of jobs, not simply try to shift jobs from one sector to another.


Sponsored LinksThroughout history, government efforts to create economic winners and losers -- no matter how well-intentioned -- have been disappointments and have been far less effective than the decisions consumers make with their buying power in a free market.

The American people are tired of name-calling. They want our leaders and the business community to engage in cooperation rather than confrontation. They want solutions, not slogans, to solve the challenges we face.

America's petroleum refiners and petrochemical companies have this message for President Obama and Congress: Work with us. Stop thinking of our industries as part of the energy problem America faces and look at us as part of the solution. We've been serving the American people for more than 100 years and will continue doing so for many decades to come.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/11/op...-stall-growth/

( TY Jasmine )

[Jolie Rouge]

Testy Soledad O’Brien Attacks Coal CEO for Stating Obama Targeted His Industry
By Noel Sheppard | August 03, 2012 | 17:02

Robert E. Murray, the founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, told CNN's Soledad O'Brien Friday that the closure and subsequent layoffs at his company's mine near Brilliant, Ohio, were "entirely" due to the anti-coal policies of Barack Obama.

Not surprisingly, the Starting Point host spent much of the eleven-minute segment defending the president she adores from this accusation

SOLEDAD O'BRIEN, HOST: This morning we're taking a closer look at coal, an Ohio mining company now shutting down its operations. That will happen in the fall laying off all its workers. They say it's the president's fault.

An Ohio American Energy statement says this, regulatory actions by President Barack Obama and his appointees and followers were cited as the entire reason of the closure. The mine is located near Brilliant, Ohio. At its peak, 239 people work there. Right now, they have 56 employees, 32 of them have been told they will be transferred within the company.

Overall the coal industry has been suffering lately. In 2011, the United States used 124 million fewer tons of coal than four years earlier and its competition, natural gas, has become lots cheaper to use.

Ohio American Energy is a subsidiary of Murray Energy Corporation and Mr. Murray, Robert Murray, is the founder, its chairman, its president and CEO. It's nice to see you, sir. Thanks for talking with us.

When we read your press release yesterday you blamed regulatory actions by President Barack Obama. What specific regulatory actions are you referring to that you specifically say are being blamed for the closure of this company?

ROBERT E. MURRAY, FOUNDER & CEO, MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION: Good morning, ma'am. Yes, ma'am, President Obama is responsible entirely for the closure of that mine and the loss of those jobs.

So far according to his own energy information agency, he has closed 175 power plants, coal fired power plants, in the United States of America.

O'BRIEN: So I was asking though about --

MURRAY: -- are being eliminated.

O'BRIEN: I was asking though about the specific because you talk about regulations. I wanted to know which were the regulations you felt specifically were to blame for the fact this mining operation was going to have to shut down?

MURRAY: Those are some of the specific regulations. The many regulations that he and his radical appointees and the U.S. EPA have put on the use of coal, there are dozens of them and collectively by his own energy administration have closed 175 power plants.

In addition, we cannot get permits for these mines. They are delaying the issuance of permits. If you can't get the permit, you can't have the mine. Ma'am, I'm very distraught this morning because this is a human issue to me.

I created those jobs and I put the investment in that mine. And when it came time to lay the people off, I went up personally and talked to everyone of them myself to lay them off. It's a human issue. Obama --

O'BRIEN: Forgive me for interrupting. People who are environmentalists, often clashing with the coal companies would also say it's a human issue.

Your attorney who was cited in some articles mentioned three specific rules so I'll name them, the Clean Air Interstate Rule, which is known as CARE, which put in place back in 2005, before President Obama.

The Cross State Air Pollution rule, which actually there is a stay on that law, it hasn't been implemented yet. And there's the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which would basically make sure that air quality for certain things like carbon monoxide and lead and nitrogen dioxide and particle pollution and sulphur dioxide.

That all those things are not only monitored, but they are also limited so they can't drift from one coal production into another state. So I think environmentalists would say that these are rules that are actually very valuable.

Talk about caring for people, to -- in terms of people's health as well. Some of them started not under President Obama, but started way before President Obama came into office.

MURRAY: You are correct and incorrect both. Though the CARE Act enacted in 2005 did protect the health of people and it did allow the coal industry to exist.

It is what the Obama administration has done with those rules over the years and implemented since he took office. He said when he took office if you build a coal powered plant in America we're going to bankrupt you.

Joe Biden said no coal in America. They are making good on that promise. But to me as I started to say it's a human issue, Ma'am, because he's destroying the lives and livelihoods of many people I know by name. These jobs will never come back.

No, they likely won't, but that didn't prevent O'Brien from continuing to defend the President.

As the conversation ensued, she brought up Murray's political contributions as well as something he once said about George W. Bush:

O'BRIEN: You know, I want to ask you about the politics of this. Because when people look into who you support politically this year alone, right, and we're only in August.

I believe you've given $150,000 to the GOP. You know, so I think there are people who could say, your position is more about politics than anything else.

Wouldn't you love to see O'Brien challenging an Obama-supporting businessman with his political contributions? Don't hold your breath.

But she wasn't done shooting the messenger:

O'BRIEN: Let me read a quote from you. You said, "God was shining on America when Bush got elected." That's a quote. All I can say, God was shining on America when George W. Bush got elected and there are many people who would look to the reputation that the Bush administration had.

Courts found and this is a quote, in court rulings, that "The administration contradicted and disregarded language of the Clean Air Act" and the courts overturned 15 rulings of the administration's own Environmental Protection Agency.

So I think that there are people who would say it's not, not about politics. That actually, clearly, if you run a coal company and you're trying to get a break on certain policies.

And that actually it does matter who's in office and you might be more willing and supportive of someone you think will give you a break.

Pretty predictable, isn't it? Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't accuse Murray of being racist.

That would have been par for the course.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...#ixzz22e0OmsSd

comments

Long hidden from public view by media propagandists is Obama's stated intention to bankrupt the coal industry. That is one of the few promises he actually meant and is fulfilling. Video proof below. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpTIhyMa-Nw

...

What he doesn't understand, is that Obama and his administration does not care how many lose their jobs. He know that once they lose their job, they become dependent upon government...and that's really the objective. As a side note, how the heck does O'brien keep her job. She is certainly one of the reasons CNN is going down the tubes into oblivion.

...

Romney has for years had a 55 point plan posted on his website on what he plans to do to turn the economy around. Every time the MSM talk about Romney, they keep saying yeah, but where are the specifics. When you point it out, they say, yeah, but where are the real specifics. It's just a talking point put out by the White House. He could have given specifics until he was blue in the face and it wouldn't have done any good.

...

a's EPA is just an arm to implement a large plan created by the UN called Agenda 21. Look it up and it will explain alot about how Obama is handling energy and land grab issues.

[Jolie Rouge]

Testy Soledad O’Brien Attacks Coal CEO for Stating Obama Targeted His Industry
By Noel Sheppard | August 03, 2012 | 17:02

Robert E. Murray, the founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation, told CNN's Soledad O'Brien Friday that the closure and subsequent layoffs at his company's mine near Brilliant, Ohio, were "entirely" due to the anti-coal policies of Barack Obama.

Not surprisingly, the Starting Point host spent much of the eleven-minute segment defending the president she adores from this accusation

Soledad O’Brien claims she’s so special that she’s above bias; mocking, debunking ensues

Posted at 3:06 pm on August 16, 2012 by Twitchy Staff

http://twitchy.com/2012/08/16/soleda...unking-ensues/

Must go read this one for yourselves...

[Jolie Rouge]

See Also : http://www.bigbigforums.com/news-inf...companies.html


Federal appeals court strikes down EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
posted at 2:41 pm on August 21, 2012 by Ed Morrissey


The Obama administration suffered a stinging legal loss at the federal appellate level today. The DC circuit vacated a novel EPA rule http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-...pollution-rule that would have forced power plants in 28 states to cut electricity production, ruling 2-1 that the EPA had exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act:

A federal court has struck down an Environmental Protection Agency rule that forces cuts in soot- and smog-forming power plant emissions that cross state lines, dealing a major blow to the White House’s air quality agenda.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that forces cuts from plants in 28 states in the eastern half of the country, finding that it exceeds EPA’s powers under the Clean Air Act. …

The judges said the Obama administration rule allows EPA to “impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind states without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text.”

Several states, including Texas, Alabama and Georgia, challenged the rule alongside the National Mining Association, power companies and other parties. But other states such as New York and Delaware, as well as environmental groups, joined the case in defense of EPA.

The EPA imposed the rule last year, announcing that the benefits of the new rule would outweigh its costs. The justices didn’t base the decision on the relative merits of the argument, though, but on the basis of statutory authority. The correct venue for making that determination would be Congress, which would then need to grant the EPA the jurisdiction for that kind of rule making and/or enforcement. Congress had not granted the EPA that kind of authority, so the cost-benefit analyses were moot.

So what comes next? The court ordered the EPA to return to the Clean Air Interstate Rule until Congress decides otherwise: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...-S-3804031.php

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington today sided with more than three dozen challengers to the EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, which imposes caps on emissions for 27 states. The rule was put on hold by the court while it considered the legality of the regulation.

The court ordered the agency to enforce a 2005 rule known as the Clear Air Interstate Rule, until a viable replacement to the cross-state pollution rule is made.

NPR calls this “another notch in [the] belt” for Texas AG Greg Abbott, who won another fight against the EPA last week, too:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/201...a-must-revise/

Just a week after a court victory against the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has another notch in his belt. Today, an appeals court in Washington has ruled that the EPA violated the Clean Air Actwith its Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and now must revise the ruling.

It’s welcome news for Abbott, who just last week bragged that he likes to “sue the Obama administration” for fun. The state of Texas was joined by dozens of others, including some Texas power companies, in challenging the rule. …

Why did the court vacate the EPA’s rule?

It said that agency had “exceeded its statutory authority” in enacting the rule. “Congress did not authorize EPA to simply adopt limits on emissions as EPA deemed reasonable,” the ruling, which you can read below, states:

“Rather, Congress set up a federalism-based system of air pollution control. Under this cooperative federalism approach, both the Federal Government and the States play significant roles. The Federal Government sets air quality standards for pollutants. The States have the primary responsibility for determining how to meet those standards and regulating sources within their borders.”

Consider this a victory for Governor Rick Perry as well. He has made it a personal mission to fight federal interference in state matters, and he’s racking up impressive victories in that battle with Washington.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/2...ollution-rule/

[Jolie Rouge]

DC Circuit Tosses Out EPA’s Pollution Rule
Posted by Daniel Horowitz Tuesday, August 21st at 1:12PM EDT

Amidst Obama’s inexorable war on American energy, consumers, jobs, and prosperity, his EPA is in the process of promulgating 4 new pollution rules that will bury the coal industry and “necessarily” raise the price of electricity on American households. They are the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for Utilities (MACT), the Cooling Water Intake Structures regulation, and the Disposal of Coal Combustion residuals. The former two have already been finalized while the latter two are close behind. Today, the D.C. Circuit Court struck downthe EPA’s authority to implement the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule.

In August 2011, Obama’s EPA imposed a cap and trade style program to expand existing limitations on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired power plants in 28 “upwind” states. They claimed that they had unlimited authority pursuant to the Clean Air Act to cap emissions that supposedly travel across state lines. The EPA admitted that the rule would cost $2.7 billion from the private sector and force many cola-fired power plants to shut down. Priorities USA might have even run an ad against Obama claiming that his superfluous regulations cause workers to lose their health insurance and die.

Luckily, several southern states decided to sue the EPA in federal court. In EME HOMER CITY GENERATION, L.P. v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the EPA had exceeded its authority under the Clean Air Act in two respects: http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/19346B280C78405C85257A61004DC0E5/$file/11-1302-1390314.pdf

First, the statutory text grants EPA authority to require upwind States to reduce only their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. But under the Transport Rule, upwind States may be required to reduce emissions by more than their own significant contributions to a downwind State’s nonattainment. EPA has used the good neighbor provision to impose massive emissions reduction requirements on upwind States without regard to the limits imposed by the statutory text. Whatever its merits as a policy matter, EPA’s Transport Rule violates the statute. Second, the Clean Air Act affords States the initial opportunity to implement reductions required by EPA under the good neighbor provision. But here, when EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations, it did not allow the States the initial opportunity to implement the required reductions with respect to sources within their borders. Instead, EPA quantified States’ good neighbor obligations and simultaneously set forth EPA-designed Federal Implementation Plans, or FIPs, to implement those obligations at the State level. By doing so, EPA departed from its consistent prior approach to implementing the good neighbor provision and violated the Act.

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the majority opinion, created more jobs with that decision that Obama did throughout his tenure.

While this is definitely a big victory, and underscores the importance of putting conservatives on the DC Circuit Court (which has original jurisdiction over many federal policy issues), we still need to continue a robust legislative assault against these cap and trade style regulations. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act still serve as an albatross around the necks of job creators and can still be used to justify many of the impending regulations, even after the court’s decision.

When Republicans take back control of government, they must move to roll back most federal involvement in regulation of pollution. With the states more than happy to pick up the slack, especially the blue states, federal involvement in this regulatory scheme can only be harmful. Rules and regulations that could potentially affect the lifeline of local economies must only be debated and implemented on a local level.

http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2...ollution-rule/

comments

This rule, if implemented is going to cause the closure of our local aluminum mill and the loss of 700 jobs - It is my understanding from reading what little our local paper reports about this issue that a local aluminum plant, Century Aluminum in Lewisport, Hancock County, Kentucky is at risk of permanently closing, due to the coming increases in electricity rates because of the EPA’s cross state air pollution rule.

The local news hardly mentions the EPA as a cause for the potential closing. Probably because they’re like most newspapers that will never criticize anything that the Democrats do to harm the economy. All the media reports is that the electricity rates are dramatically increasing, without giving any explanation.

It’s ironic that the 700 jobs which will be lost are primarily union jobs. In the words of our great religious leader and philosopher, Rev. Wilbur Wright, maybe the chickens are coming home to roost. If anyone on Redstate can supply more details about this issue, it would be appreciated.

..

Our local TV station was reporting on the increase in food prices because of the shortage of corn due to the ongoing drought. Not once though did they mention the role of the ethanol mandate in increasing corn prices. Lies of omission.

[Jolie Rouge]

War on Coal casualties: 204 plants in the next 3-5 years. Americans can’t afford unreliable power.