PDA

View Full Version : EPA Murdering the Coal Industry. Goodnight WV.



Sev
07-09-2011, 06:08 AM
Its estimated that 1.5 million people are both directly and indirectly employed by the coal industry.
I heard yesterday that plants are already planing on shutting down as they do not have the ability to meet the regulations.

I cant wait to see the rolling brown outs in coal dependent area's.


<span style="color: #000000">http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/ne...coal-industry/

New EPA rules to devastate coal industry

The coal industry is crying foul over new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations which they say will be among the most be costly rules ever imposed by the agency on coal-fueled power plants.

The result, industry insiders say: substantially higher electricity rates and massive job loss.

“The EPA is ignoring the cumulative economic damage new regulations will cause,” said Steve Miller, president and CEO of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). “America’s coal-fueled electric industry has been doing its part for the environment and the economy, but our industry needs adequate time to install clean coal technologies to comply with new regulations. Unfortunately, EPA doesn’t seem to care.”

Thursday the EPA announced that they have finalized additional Clean Air Act provisions, collectively known as “The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule” to ostensibly “reduce air pollution and attain clean air standards,” by requiring coal companies in 27 states to slash emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide by 73 percent and 54 percent, respectively, from 2005 levels by 2014.

According to the EPA, these emissions travel across state lines and contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution.

The rule will replace a similar 2005 standard called the Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA claims that the new rule will result in a savings of $120 to $280 billion in annual health and environmental benefits as well as save 13,000 to 34,000 lives. (EPA stimulating environmental regulations abroad)

While the EPA’s alleged benefits are lofty, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton cautioned that the new rules will come with a hefty price.

“The goal for these rules should be reasonable regulation that protects public health and the environment while also preserving economic growth. Unfortunately, the unprecedented pace at which the administration is issuing major new rules that impose new costs and regulatory requirements on states, employers, and consumers fails that basic test,” said Upton. “By issuing multiple regulations for the energy and other sectors at such an accelerated rate, EPA has turned regulation from a manageable tool into an unpredictable moving target that makes it difficult for companies to invest and create jobs.”

The coal industry has the same practical concerns.

An analysis ACCCE released earlier this month by the National Economic Research Associates (NERA) used government data to examine the combined impacts of today’s rule and another EPA electricity regulation, the “Utility MACT” Rule. <span style="color: #660000"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>According to NERA’s examination, the EPA’s actions would cause a net job loss of over 1.4 million job-years by 2020.

Further, NERA found that electricity rates would increase over 23 percent in coal-reliant areas and that though the EPA might claim the regulations will create jobs, NERA predicted that for every job created four will be lost.
</span></span>
Nevertheless, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says the new rules will be beneficial to communities across the country. (SEC cedes leasing power after putting taxpayers on line for $550 million mistake)

“No community should have to bear the burden of another community’s polluters, or be powerless to prevent air pollution that leads to asthma, heart attacks and other harmful illnesses. These Clean Air Act safeguards will help protect the health of millions of Americans and save lives by preventing smog and soot pollution from traveling hundreds of miles and contaminating the air they breathe,” Jackson said.

“By maximizing flexibility and leveraging existing technology, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule will help ensure that American families aren’t suffering the consequences of pollution generated far from home, while allowing states to decide how best to decrease dangerous air pollution in the most cost effective way.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/07/07/ne...#ixzz1RbkiJRS1</span>

LWW
07-09-2011, 06:53 AM
Where's aitch ... he'll explain to these WV bubbas that they need to learn their place, or that <span style='font-size: 11pt'>B-B-B-BOOOOSH!!!!</span> did it.

Sev
07-09-2011, 07:08 AM
5 coal fire plants in OH have already been slated for shut down and 600 jobs to be lost.

You know the actuality will be worse than the estimates.

Expect the experts to be surprised.

LWW
07-09-2011, 07:35 AM
So why are the democrooks dismantling their beloved "CARTER ENERGY PLAN" that they have trumpeted for 3+ decades?

llotter
07-09-2011, 08:41 AM
I forget what moron said this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under my plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket. </div></div>

but we know he is very concerned about the little people.

LWW
07-09-2011, 09:09 AM
That would be dear leader.

Sev
07-09-2011, 11:15 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I forget what moron said this,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under my plan, electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket. </div></div>

but we know he is very concerned about the little people.


</div></div>

Its right on the tip of my tongue.

ugotda7
07-09-2011, 11:57 AM
I recently drove through WV and saw a big billboard with a picture of the president and his "No Jobs Zone" of WV and surrounding states which depend on coal. The irony was truly amazing given the most famous WV member here.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 12:13 PM
We all probably realize that a government claim is suspect. I guess most forget that industry claims are also suspect.

I'm old enough to remember the auto industry protested they would be driven out of business, or have to massively increase the price of a car, if they were required to install seat belts, or put in catalytic converters, or meet fuel economy standards, or basically anything they were required to do. They always cried wolf, and they were always blowing smoke.

When the whole industry blows smoke for a living (joke), but moreover has a lot of money at stake, it's not wise to take their claims at face value.

To figure out what's the truth would require hearing some back and forth between experts of both sides, which this article is not providing. Also, is that analytical group mentioned respected and professionally neutral and therefore reliable, or is it an industry captive shill company? Could be either, and I don't know which. Doubt you do, either.

If you decide to take industry hysterics at face value, you will almost always be mistaken. Although the boy who cried wolf was right one time, so...

LWW
07-09-2011, 12:18 PM
You have to understand the mindset of the typical gubmint retiree ... he has his and screw everyone else.

I wonder how he explains to his children and grandchildren that his ideology has shut down the majority of good paying blue collar jobs, yet they should agree to bankrupt the future of their children and grandchildren so that his beloved gubmint employees can retire at less than 60 years of age and off of the taxpayer of another 25 years ... even though the taxpayers have to work till age 67 to get anything approximating their bennies?

LWW
07-09-2011, 12:29 PM
FROM THIS DATA (http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/west-virginia/) it seems that WV had UE higher than the nation through the Clinton regime ... as high as about 11.25%.

Then the facts show that the <span style='font-size: 11pt'>EEEVILLL</span> Bush regime came to power ... yet oddly the WV UE rate went lower than the national average ... barely 4% at one point.

Then, West Virginians were blessed with "the leader God has sent us at this time" ... yet somehow the UE rate more than doubled under dear leader.

What's truly amazing is that he is working awfully hard to destroy his own state ... and has been doing it for quite some time ... while cursing those nder whom they prospered.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 01:50 PM
Minor but significant corrections all around on that one.

11.25% unemployment under Clinton? Barely true, if at all, and misleading. Maybe it was that as of the start of '93 (where it had been on that plateau for some time before he took office), then immediately down from that high. This was an inherited UE number, and it immediately began down from as of Clinton's taking office.

The WV UE rate was almost identical to the national average for most of the Bush terms, maximums tenths of a point difference, until it went noticeably lower about 2008. When most of the W term was finished.

WV UE 'more than doubled' under O? Not at all. 2009 is above 5%, and it never got to 10%. As to the mystery of how it all happened, comparing the two graph lines, WV UE tracked national UE increase closely although slightly lower, until it briefly got very slightly higher, and is now lower again than the national average (by a small amount, see tail of graph).

By 'working awfully hard to destroy his own state,' you cannot mean WV, or Illinois, I presume. So you mean by that, the US?

ugotda7
07-09-2011, 02:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Minor but significant corrections all around on that one.

11.25% unemployment under Clinton? Barely true, if at all, and misleading. Maybe it was that as of the start of '93 (where it had been on that plateau for some time before he took office), then immediately down from that high. This was an inherited UE number, and it immediately began down from as of Clinton's taking office.

The WV UE rate was almost identical to the national average for most of the Bush terms, maximums tenths of a point difference, until it went noticeably lower about 2008. When most of the W term was finished.

WV UE 'more than doubled' under O? Not at all. 2009 is above 5%, and it never got to 10%. As to the mystery of how it all happened, comparing the two graph lines, WV UE tracked national UE increase closely although slightly lower, until it briefly got very slightly higher, and is now lower again than the national average (by a small amount, see tail of graph).

By 'working awfully hard to destroy his own state,' you cannot mean WV, or Illinois, I presume. So you mean by that, the US?

</div></div>

I'm noticing that you seem to just make things up.

WV's unemployment was 10.9% in Feb of 2010. In late 2008 it started a drastic climb from 3.7% and has leveled off around 9%.

And it's misleading to say it immediately began down under Clinton as if that's that. It did go down, but back and up and eventually had a downward trend. It's also misleading in regard to your comment about Bush - the lowest unemployment in the last 20 years was in Sep/Oct 2007, far from when his second term was over.

By all means feel free to disagree....but take that disagreement up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics if it floats your boat.

http://www.unemployment-rate.org/states/unemployment_rate/West_Virginia

The fact is that this administration is killing WV jobs out of an ideological agenda, the same way they're doing it with the oil industry....to deny this is just plain ridiculous....and to deny that this is bad for the country is even more ridiculous.

LWW
07-09-2011, 05:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'm noticing that you seem to just make things up.

</div></div>

I've never seen a leftist who didn't.

Sev
07-09-2011, 06:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We all probably realize that a government claim is suspect. I guess most forget that industry claims are also suspect.

I'm old enough to remember the auto industry protested they would be driven out of business, or have to massively increase the price of a car, if they were required to install seat belts, or put in catalytic converters, or meet fuel economy standards, or basically anything they were required to do. They always cried wolf, and they were always blowing smoke.

When the whole industry blows smoke for a living (joke), but moreover has a lot of money at stake, it's not wise to take their claims at face value.

To figure out what's the truth would require hearing some back and forth between experts of both sides, which this article is not providing. Also, is that analytical group mentioned respected and professionally neutral and therefore reliable, or is it an industry captive shill company? Could be either, and I don't know which. Doubt you do, either.

If you decide to take industry hysterics at face value, you will almost always be mistaken. Although the boy who cried wolf was right one time, so...
</div></div>

TN is now closing several coal dependent plants.
Fortunately TN has been looking forward and has 2 more nuclear plants in the pipeline and has built several multi fuel plants that will be coming online.

The tail will be told in full as the nations coal dependent power plants begin to shut down.

Soflasnapper
07-09-2011, 07:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Minor but significant corrections all around on that one.

11.25% unemployment under Clinton? Barely true, if at all, and misleading. Maybe it was that as of the start of '93 (where it had been on that plateau for some time before he took office), then immediately down from that high. This was an inherited UE number, and it immediately began down from as of Clinton's taking office.

The WV UE rate was almost identical to the national average for most of the Bush terms, maximums tenths of a point difference, until it went noticeably lower about 2008. When most of the W term was finished.

WV UE 'more than doubled' under O? Not at all. 2009 is above 5%, and it never got to 10%. As to the mystery of how it all happened, comparing the two graph lines, WV UE tracked national UE increase closely although slightly lower, until it briefly got very slightly higher, and is now lower again than the national average (by a small amount, see tail of graph).

By 'working awfully hard to destroy his own state,' you cannot mean WV, or Illinois, I presume. So you mean by that, the US?

</div></div>

I'm noticing that you seem to just make things up.

WV's unemployment was 10.9% in Feb of 2010. In late 2008 it started a drastic climb from 3.7% and has leveled off around 9%.

And it's misleading to say it immediately began down under Clinton as if that's that. It did go down, but back and up and eventually had a downward trend. It's also misleading in regard to your comment about Bush - the lowest unemployment in the last 20 years was in Sep/Oct 2007, far from when his second term was over.

By all means feel free to disagree....but take that disagreement up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics if it floats your boat.

http://www.unemployment-rate.org/states/unemployment_rate/West_Virginia

The fact is that this administration is killing WV jobs out of an ideological agenda, the same way they're doing it with the oil industry....to deny this is just plain ridiculous....and to deny that this is bad for the country is even more ridiculous.

</div></div>

I was relying on LWW's chart, which he posted above. I think what I said was accurate as to that chart, and I didn't suspect the chart would be wrong.

As to Sept/Oct '07 being far different from what I said, it is the same as I said. That its UE rate was tracking the national UE very closely until "about 2008" (you say a quarter year before, I said about 2008) it started getting noticeably lower than the national UE rate (entirely true, per the chart).

I welcome and encourage all corrections, so thank you. But the linked chart doesn't show UE achieving 10% let alone more. Since it isn't clear on what time scale the measured UE is being reported, maybe a single month's figure wasn't shown, but by averages for quarters.

If it's true, and I don't doubt it, that WV unemployment got to 10.9% in February 2010, it was down sharply then by June 2010, to 8.9%. 2% down in only 4 months? Some destruction of employment there for you.

Sure, it bounced up for a time, and as of May 2011, it was lower than June 2010, at 8.6% (per LWW's link, lowest and last of charts on that page). Some destruction of employment there for you.

And remember, two recessions ago, under Bush Sr.'s fairly mild recession, as previously cited, the unemployment rate was 11.25% or so, without any supposed attacks on coal, at least from O.

I see nothing in the numbers to indicate some invidious persecution of coal affecting WV UE numbers, apart from the lingering effects of the far worse recent recession than the mild Bush Sr. recession, whose effects were far worse.

When WV was at 11.25% then, the country's peak UE was 7.8% or so, attained a year and half after the recession had technically ended.

ugotda7
07-09-2011, 09:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Minor but significant corrections all around on that one.

11.25% unemployment under Clinton? Barely true, if at all, and misleading. Maybe it was that as of the start of '93 (where it had been on that plateau for some time before he took office), then immediately down from that high. This was an inherited UE number, and it immediately began down from as of Clinton's taking office.

The WV UE rate was almost identical to the national average for most of the Bush terms, maximums tenths of a point difference, until it went noticeably lower about 2008. When most of the W term was finished.

WV UE 'more than doubled' under O? Not at all. 2009 is above 5%, and it never got to 10%. As to the mystery of how it all happened, comparing the two graph lines, WV UE tracked national UE increase closely although slightly lower, until it briefly got very slightly higher, and is now lower again than the national average (by a small amount, see tail of graph).

By 'working awfully hard to destroy his own state,' you cannot mean WV, or Illinois, I presume. So you mean by that, the US?

</div></div>

I'm noticing that you seem to just make things up.

WV's unemployment was 10.9% in Feb of 2010. In late 2008 it started a drastic climb from 3.7% and has leveled off around 9%.

And it's misleading to say it immediately began down under Clinton as if that's that. It did go down, but back and up and eventually had a downward trend. It's also misleading in regard to your comment about Bush - the lowest unemployment in the last 20 years was in Sep/Oct 2007, far from when his second term was over.

By all means feel free to disagree....but take that disagreement up with the Bureau of Labor Statistics if it floats your boat.

http://www.unemployment-rate.org/states/unemployment_rate/West_Virginia

The fact is that this administration is killing WV jobs out of an ideological agenda, the same way they're doing it with the oil industry....to deny this is just plain ridiculous....and to deny that this is bad for the country is even more ridiculous.

</div></div>

I was relying on LWW's chart, which he posted above. I think what I said was accurate as to that chart, and I didn't suspect the chart would be wrong.

As to Sept/Oct '07 being far different from what I said, it is the same as I said. That its UE rate was tracking the national UE very closely until "about 2008" (you say a quarter year before, I said about 2008) it started getting noticeably lower than the national UE rate (entirely true, per the chart).

I welcome and encourage all corrections, so thank you. But the linked chart doesn't show UE achieving 10% let alone more. Since it isn't clear on what time scale the measured UE is being reported, maybe a single month's figure wasn't shown, but by averages for quarters.

If it's true, and I don't doubt it, that WV unemployment got to 10.9% in February 2010, it was down sharply then by June 2010, to 8.9%. 2% down in only 4 months? Some destruction of employment there for you.

Sure, it bounced up for a time, and as of May 2011, it was lower than June 2010, at 8.6% (per LWW's link, lowest and last of charts on that page). Some destruction of employment there for you.

And remember, two recessions ago, under Bush Sr.'s fairly mild recession, as previously cited, the unemployment rate was 11.25% or so, without any supposed attacks on coal, at least from O.

I see nothing in the numbers to indicate some invidious persecution of coal affecting WV UE numbers, apart from the lingering effects of the far worse recent recession than the mild Bush Sr. recession, whose effects were far worse.

When WV was at 11.25% then, the country's peak UE was 7.8% or so, attained a year and half after the recession had technically ended. </div></div>

I think you're really reaching to try and downplay the negative effects of change in presidents on the coal industry in WV.

Anyway, picture below from the link I earlier provided.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a364/ugotda7/WVUE.jpg

LWW
07-10-2011, 03:36 AM
He will never cease in his attempt to defend the failure of the Obama regime.

Soflasnapper
07-10-2011, 06:10 PM
I'm suggesting the indictment you raise against Obama for destroying the WV economy (or at least raising UE) through destroying its coal sector seems ahistorical, since WV has had a tough time in prior mild recessions, and this was a terrible one, with an anemic recovery.

In the Bush anemic recovery, a year and a half after the recession ended and recovery of gdp growth had been underway (i.e., about this same time in this recovery), WV UE was the 11.25% cited. It's peak this time didn't hit that level, and now, at about the same time, is lower than the national average, going up as the national average is also going up.

This appears an entirely sufficient explanation without going to the 'he's killing coal' theory, for which I've seen no evidence except the bleatings of the industry spokesmen and their toady governmental hired guns.

Is it your position that even after such a terrible recession, and comparably early in a bad recovery, somehow WV ought to be at 4% UE or something?

Sev
07-10-2011, 07:51 PM
The real question is what happens to the people in the coal industry if the plants begin shutting down faster than the administration anticipates and demand for the product plummets throughout the industry?

Soflasnapper
07-11-2011, 02:52 PM
According to your link of WV EU numbers, the UE in January 2009 was 6.7%.

Doubling THAT figure would require 13.4% unemployment. You've shown the peak as reported by this source at 10.9%, considerably lower than 13.4%

Oddly then, despite my error that the EU never got to 10% (using LWW's graph), I was STILL correct to say he exaggerated to say the EU had doubled under Obama.

W was president until Inauguration Day, which is 3 weeks into January.

LWW
07-11-2011, 04:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sev</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The real question is what happens to the people in the coal industry if the plants begin shutting down faster than the administration anticipates and demand for the product plummets throughout the industry?

</div></div>

They are flyover bubbas ... so why should anyone care?

Sev
07-12-2011, 06:42 AM
There is that.
Acceptable collateral damage then?

Luckily my particular region is not dependent on coal.

I would suspect that 23% is a low estimate of what the rise in cost will be. It will lead to more inflation the the government will not track.

Wait till people see their summer time bills for running air conditioning.
Will another for of collateral damage be the old and babies that die because people can not afford climate control in their homes?

LWW
07-12-2011, 07:01 AM
It appears they would be considered acceptable losses in the war on prosperity ... and it would help reduce MEDICARE costs.

Meanwhile, on the people's dime ... dear leader keeps the oval office hot enough to grow orchids in during January! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/obama-cranks-up-white-hou_n_162127.html)

Soflasnapper
07-12-2011, 03:59 PM
That was only an Axelrod statement, and probably a joke.

I doubt you'd take Axelrod's statement as factual on any other matter, and there is no indication he knows how hot it takes to grow an orchid, nor that he was serious.

LWW
07-12-2011, 05:22 PM
And, again, you make excuses for dear leader's blatant hypocrisy.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Obama said: <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK." ... "That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen.."[</span>/b] And so we must keep our themostat lower than 72 degrees to conserve energy <span style='font-size: 11pt'>[b]while Obama has his White House thermostat set at 76 - 78 degrees or warm enough for people to sweat some.</span> His excuse? Well, he's from Hawaii, ya know even after living in frigid Chicago for some time. </div></div>

And you try so hard. (http://dcrepublicans.blogspot.com/2009/01/most-naive-and-unethical-administration.html)

Soflasnapper
07-13-2011, 08:47 AM
Sounds like he was talking about excessive AIR CONDITIONING in the summertime. According to the sources, he will not be setting the air conditioning so low as 72 himself during the summer time, which is apparently exactly walking the walk of his talk, as there is no showing that he was telling people to only WARM their home to 68 or something.

Does he save as much with lowered air conditioning (i.e., higher thermostat) as he may allegedly waste in the winter? Hard to say, but it certainly is an offset.

LWW
07-13-2011, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds like he was talking about excessive AIR CONDITIONING in the summertime. According to the sources, he will not be setting the air conditioning so low as 72 himself during the summer time, which is apparently exactly walking the walk of his talk, as there is no showing that he was telling people to only WARM their home to 68 or something.

Does he save as much with lowered air conditioning (i.e., higher thermostat) as he may allegedly waste in the winter? Hard to say, but it certainly is an offset. </div></div>

http://www.lifewithoutpants.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/jack1.png

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!</span>

The article was from January, 2009 ... days after dear leader was immaculated.

Are you seriously so desperate to defend dear leader that you are asking us to believe he was keeping the Oval Office set at 76-78 degrees so he wouldn't have to use the AC in Washington, DC in January of 2009?

FWIW (http://www.farmersalmanac.com/weather-history/search-results/) , the temperature range in DC between Jauary 20 and January 29th of 2009 ... the only possible dates ... was a low of 18 and a high of 51.

Next myth you would like to pass off for reality?

Sev
07-15-2011, 06:30 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/271876/epa-created-power-shortages-3-2-1-greg-pollowitz

<span style="color: #000000">EPA-Created Power Shortages in 3. . .2. . .1. . .
July 14, 2011 10:24 A.M.
By Greg Pollowitz

AP:

DALLAS — The major electric power provider for much of North and West Texas is considering how to respond to new federal clean-air regulations, including closing or reducing operations at some of its coal-fired plants and coal mines, according to a regulatory filing Wednesday.

In a filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Energy Future Holdings Corp. said it was considering the shutdowns or slowdowns, as well as seasonal or temporary shutdowns. The Dallas-based owner of Luminant Generation Co. also said it was considering the option of installing scrubbers to remove sulfur dioxide from plant emissions, or even switching fuels to fire the furnaces that generate the steam used to generate electric power.

It was unclear from the filing in which direction the company was leaning and which plants were likeliest to be affected. Luminant spokesman Allan Koenig said there was no timetable for the decisions.

“We have made no decisions about our operations and are still analyzing the rule to determine how we will comply,” he said in a statement.

The company said it was entitled to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the new clean-air provision, even to sue to stop it, but “we cannot predict whether we would be successful in a legal challenge,” the filing said.

The EPA’s new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule requires Texas and 26 other states to improve air quality significantly by reducing power plant emissions that contribute to ozone and fine particle pollution in other states. The rule takes effect Jan. 1.
</span>

Soflasnapper
07-15-2011, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sounds like he was talking about excessive AIR CONDITIONING in the summertime. According to the sources, he will not be setting the air conditioning so low as 72 himself during the summer time, which is apparently exactly walking the walk of his talk, as there is no showing that he was telling people to only WARM their home to 68 or something.

Does he save as much with lowered air conditioning (i.e., higher thermostat) as he may allegedly waste in the winter? Hard to say, but it certainly is an offset. </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!</span>

The article was from January, 2009 ... days after dear leader was immaculated.

Are you seriously so desperate to defend dear leader that you are asking us to believe he was keeping the Oval Office set at 76-78 degrees so he wouldn't have to use the AC in Washington, DC in January of 2009?

FWIW (http://www.farmersalmanac.com/weather-history/search-results/) , the temperature range in DC between Jauary 20 and January 29th of 2009 ... the only possible dates ... was a low of 18 and a high of 51.

Next myth you would like to pass off for reality?
</div></div>

Your link had this link for backing up the O advice on the thermostat. The statement was made in May, right before the summer kicked in. Hot Air's AllahPundit, the author, certainly HIMSELF thought that he was referring to air conditioning, not winter heating, per the comments below.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> A winning campaign slogan if ever there was one: You’re going on a diet.

Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Silky tried a much milder version of this idea last summer </span>and had to reverse course within 48 hours. Let’s see if the Messiah holds fast or if this too goes the way of the bare, noble, dissenting jacket lapel. The science is on his side, people. Exit question: For all the criticism the left levels at hubristic conservatives for overestimating American power, does this tool really think China’s going to deny itself luxuries that are now available thanks to its new wealth in a show of admiration for moronic Americans dieting to save the polar bears or <span style='font-size: 14pt'>sweltering in apartments with the A/C off to reduce emissions?</span></div></div>

Linked here. (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/19/obama-lets-eat-less-so-that-we-can-lead-by-example-on-climate-change-by-eating-less/)

I can handle the truth, it's just that I find so little of it in your mistaken claims.

LWW
07-16-2011, 04:09 AM
You have now descended into total propaganda levels of dishonesty.

BACK TO REALITY (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html?_r=3) ... the root story, contained within the links I provided, was the reich wing blog known as the New York Times from January of 2009.

As already noted, you can't handle the truth ... I just wish you would stop attempting to pawn off your self created myths.

Next propaganda piece?