New EPA rule on coal--when, what will it be, and how much will it cost consumers?

As soon as this Friday--yes, another Friday news dump--another EPA assault on coal power plants might occur.

Yes, another EPA rule. This announcement has been long-delayed--and bad news that comes from the government usually is accompanied by foot-dragging.

From E&E on January 30, paid subscription required:

As [the] U.S. EPA prepares to release its proposed rule for cutting greenhouse emissions from power plants as soon as this Friday, there's abundant speculation but little solid information about what it will include.

Will the proposal cover both new and modified power plants or just new construction? Will it require coal-fired power plants to make some efficiency improvements or will it in effect ban construction of new coal burners by making their emissions meet standards for new natural gas plants?

The Obama administration has been mum about the standard, which was sent to the Office of Management and Budget for vetting nearly three months ago. And EPA has not said when it will propose a standard for existing power plants, as it was required to do by a settlement agreement with environmentalists finalized in late 2010.

"EPA is continuing to work with petitioners on a new schedule for issuing greenhouse gas standards for existing power plants," the agency said in a statement Friday.

But President Obama, as E&E points out later in that article, may have tipped his hand at last month's State of the Union Address when he touted natural gas.

What we need is an all-of-the-above approach to energy. I like natural gas, I'm writing this post in my natural gas-heated home. But abandoning coal for natural gas will drive up the cost of this fuel. In fact, this press release issued this morning is predicting just that--and it cites Obama's State of the Union as evidence.

Coal plants could be forced to closed--or they could simply become too expensive to operate because of EPA regulations.

The energy war is taking its toll on the coal mining business, which pays its workers well. Obama had the audacity to boast that he represented a coal state, Illinois, while he was running for president four years ago during a campaign stop in Montana. But my state's moribund coal mining interests could serve as a preview for Montana and other coal states. The Big Sky State has seen a slowdown in mining projects because of the expense from onerous rules. In a guest op-ed for the Billings Gazette, Mark Lambrecht writes:

This decline has been brought on by shifting state regulations that, when coupled with federal permitting regulations, are duplicative and overly burdensome. This bureaucratic mess can delay mining projects up to 10 years, making for a poor business environment and deterring investors who prefer to back mining projects where the regulatory environment is more stable.

Is there an overall war on mining too? Lembrecht adds:

Other nations are benefiting exponentially from record metals prices, while we watch them rake in the cash-and new jobs-from the sidelines. Our government has road blocked mining to the point that the United States is importing $5.1 billion worth of minerals to meet our needs, despite having $6.2 trillion worth right here at home.

Fewer American jobs, shuttered power plants, and more expensive natural gas.

Obama did promise to "fundamentally transform America."

Technorati tags: Democrats politics Obama Barack Obama coal environment energy epa