Coal Regs Would Kill Jobs, Boost Energy Bills

June 8, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (287)

Two new EPA pollution regulations will slam the coal industry so hard that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost, and electric rates will skyrocket 11 percent to over 23 percent, according to a new study based on government data.

Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group.

[Check out a roundup of political cartoons on energy policy.]

“Many of these severe impacts would hit families living in states already facing serious economic challenges,” said Steve Miller, president of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. “Because of these impacts, EPA should make major changes to the proposed regulations before they are finalized,” he said.

The EPA, however, tells Whispers that the hit the industry will suffer is worth the health benefits. “EPA has taken a number of sensible steps to protect public health, while also working with industry and other stakeholders to ensure that these important Clean Air Act standards—such as the first ever national Mercury and Air Toxics Standards for coal-fired power plants—are reasonable, common-sense, and achievable,” said spokesman Brendan Gilfillan. [Read Rep. Darrell Issa: Obama's Bad Policy, Harmful Regulations Add to Gas Prices.]

What’s more, officials said that just one of the rules to cut sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions will would yield up to $290 billion in annual health and welfare benefits in 2014. They say that amounts to preventing up to 36,000 premature deaths, 26,000 hospital and emergency room visits, and 240,000 cases of aggravated asthma. “This far outweighs the estimated annual costs,” says an official on background. [Check out political cartoons on the economy.]

Still, the EPA did note that the two new antipollution rules are “pending” and that the agency has “accepted and are considering feedback” from the industry.

The industry says the costs and potential to lose four jobs for every new clean energy job created isn’t worth the rules, especially in a job-starved economy. [See a slide show of the best cities to find a job.]

Referring to the analysis of the EPA regulations from National Economic Research Associates, Miller said they would be the most expensive rules ever imposed on power plants.

Coal-fired energy plants currently fuel about half of the nation’s energy supply.

Tags:
EPA,
energy policy and climate change,
unemployment

Reader Comments Read all comments (287)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

And, Mary, your last line is fascinating. A big corporation lays off a lot of workers (how many, by the way?), claiming this is partly a response to EPA regulations.... and your gut response is, "Thanks for bending us over, EPA."

Where is the corporation (and its power) in that equation? Is it utterly passive and helpless?

When you are able to see that the corporation could very well be the one who is actually "bending us over," you'll start to get a handle on what's really happening.

In this country, there is a long-standing blind faith: "Corporate capitalism is infallible, or, if not totally infallible, its priorities are etched in stone and cannot be questioned, let alone changed. It MUST be about maximizing profit at all times, without regard to the resulting costs to our society and our environment. We can never expect capitalism to be more well-balanced by including other values that compete with profit. It is what it is, and, like God or a force of nature, it is exempt from blame or responsibility. Other institutions, like government and individuals, must always bend to its needs. If they conflict with business, THEY must be wrong."

This faith needs to be abandoned. Now.

What it leads to, when government priorities conflict with business priorities, is people automatically assuming that government must be the villain. ("Thanks for bending us over, EPA.") In this mindset, government is a faulty institution created by people, but capitalism simply IS, period-- an indescribable force that came from who knows where. People will celebrate the power of capitalism... until there's BLAME to go around, and then capitalist power suddenly disappears from their minds. It's "the invisible hand of the free market" because we allow its culpability to be invisible to us.

No more. Witness the meltdown of 2008, which is just for openers. Corporatism is leading us (and itself) over a cliff, and you should not trust it any more than you trust "Big Government". Less so, actually, because at least government is SUPPOSED to have our interests in mind, whereas corporations are legally required to concentrate on "maximum return to the shareholders" above all else. And most shares are held by the largest institutional shareholders-- Wall Street firms and other huge companies-- who get the spoils. More and more, the rest of us get the shaft. If the federal government is partly to blame, that's largely because the corporate world increasingly OWNS IT AND RUNS IT.

neal campbell of NY 12:51AM September 08, 2012

To Mary of PA:

I don't know if you or a family member works at the coal company you mentioned, but let's look at your statement. The jobs were said to have been lost in part due to "...EPA regulations and interpretations..."

1.) What "part" of the job loss was due to that? 50 percent? 20? 1 percent? Was it ever specified? And how was that cause-and-effect calculated? By whom?

2) Who provided the quote that you excerpted? Was it the coal company management, either directly or through a press release quoted in the news media?

3) If it WAS the management (or their PR firm) that said this, how do you know you can believe them? "EPA regs" could be a convenient excuse that covers up other reasons for THEIR DECISION to lay off workers-- other reasons that, if revealed, would be much less flattering to the corporation's image (and to their ideological stance). They have a powerful vested interest in protecting their millions (or perhaps billions) of dollars by any means they deem necessary, including propaganda spin-- therefore, do NOT automatically assume their public statements are gospel! They are not in business to be truthful, accurate and forthcoming-- they're in business to make money.

4) I capitalized "THEIR DECISION" to emphasize that the corporate board CHOSE to lay off workers. We're encouraged to assume this was their only possible option, but you must NEVER assume that! What was the purpose of this "downsizing"? To save the corporation from bankruptcy? Or to maintain or improve its profit margin so the top executives could continue to draw lavish salaries? You say the fired workers' payroll totaled $18 million. Is that figure less or more than the company's total "compensation" of its executives each year (salaries, stock options, golden parachutes, etc.)? Did THEY ever volunteer to take a pay cut to keep the company cost-competitive?

5) If your reply is, "Oh, come on, you can't expect management to take a pay cut for the good of the company"... Why not? Because it's not "realistic" to expect them to make any personal sacrifice? (Who do you suppose might have pushed to make THAT assumption the "conventional wisdom"?) Besides, management incompetence might have put the company in this supposed tight spot in the first place.

6) Here in NY state, several coal-fired power plants have closed recently. The primary reasons given by the company that owns them? a) The comparatively low cost of natural gas, due to excess supply. Some of these plants may be converted to use that instead.

b) They're buying electricity from Canada instead of generating it here. "EPA regulations" were not prominent among their stated reasons.

7) And finally, for the sake of argument, let's suppose EPA regs did, in fact, impose very high costs on the coal industry AND the industry had NO other choice but to get rid of many workers. Damn shame, but THAT, in itself, would not be proof that the regs were unnecessary.

neal campbell of NY 11:24PM September 07, 2012

We just lost more than a quarter of the workforce here at a major coal company in PA in part because of the "the escalating cost and uncertainty generated recently by the advanced EPA regulations and interpretations.." Average the salary of these employees and it amounts to almost 18 million dollars in annual income. 18 MILLION. Thanks for bending us over EPA.

Mary of PA 12:41AM July 21, 2012

About this blog

About this blog

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement