Recently the EPA has passed legislation targeted toward improving energy efficiency by 2030. Sounds honorable, however, when business owners and employees feel the pain inflicted by these laws, they will realize just how much the EPA’s inability to compromise hurts.
It is possible for the EPA, and U.S. business, large and small, to arrive at an ideal solution with regard to economic production and positive environmental progress. The EPA could make arrangements through the Federal Government to provide coal-run plants leases for “scrubbers” needed for compliance of new regulations.
The EPA, however, will not compromise because they are against any usage of fossil fuels, especially coal. Fossil fuels, however, are not obsolete, in fact, by 2030, oil, natural gas, and coal will consist of approximately 75% of world fuels consumed.
According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as a result of EPA legislation, approximately 20% of coal fired electricity by 2016 will be retired. In the U.S. A high percentage of power supplied to American residences and businesses are still reliant on coal. It employs thousands of Americans. Bankrupting this industry would be a big mistake. In 2011, the U.S. exported over $16 billion in coal.
Is the EPA trustworthy? Regarding new regulations, the EPA has tried to justify their action using faulty math. The approximate annual cost of implementing new energy regulations was $7.5 billion for the U.S., with a benefit of $31 billion dollars. The EPA, however, downplays that that the $31 billion dollar benefit, which is questionable to begin with, is a global total. The actual benefit to the U.S. is far less. Even the Brookings Institute, a fairly left leaning think tank took issue with the EPA’s math.
The EPA’s most recent laws are similar to recommendations made by The Alliance To Save Energy. Both use 2030 as a target date. With regard to benchmarks set by the EPA and ASE, businesses that that are not able to meet the “suggested” regulations will be bankrupted, putting many Americans out of work.
The Alliance to Save to Save Energy’s cost benefit analysis states that “hundreds of billions” will have to be invested in changes businesses to ensure efficiency, and guarantee the “well over a trillion dollars” in benefits. ASE states that incentivizing energy efficiency will help modernize fuel usage, and save Americans money.
Incentivizing energy efficiency is a great idea. However, ASE also states that for optimal return, regulations and infrastructure will have to be made now. Who will end up paying? Taxpayers and businesses regardless of whether they want these changes or not.
American Petroleum Institute also proposed a plan using 2030 as its target date. In API’s study conducted by Wood Mackenzie, if the EPA had smarter, less restrictive solutions regarding fossil fuels, by 2030, the U.S. would create 1.4 million new jobs with $800 billion of revenue to the government. In addition, the U.S. would be taking full advantage of its domestic energy supply instead of giving money to countries that stand against its best interests.
There is a clear choice with regard to fuel efficiency in 2030. American taxpayers can follow API’s advice for responsible fuel usage, and utilize domestic fuel resources, experiencing higher employment, and better viability for the U.S. globally. Or, they can follow the path of ASE and the EPA, experiencing regulations that would shut down thousands of businesses. Fact is, in 2030, although the presence of non-renewable fuels will be higher than they are now, coal, oil, and natural gas will still dominate global and domestic energy supply.