June 2, 2014

“Vulnerable Senate Democrats fear impact of new EPA rule”

So argues the Washington Examiner’s editorial board.  And they’re probably right.  But then, there’s the problem with politics:  these Senate Democrats fear the impact of the new EPA rule (unconstitutional though it be, unless it’s a tax, in which case, hey, the founders really wanted a dictatorship. They just didn’t realize it until John Roberts sussed it out) precisely and only because they’re vulnerable at the ballot box.  What such a de-growth initiative will do to working families, American productivity, and the prospects of energy independence and the economic vitality that comes with it, doesn’t matter to them one whit, save that adopting disdain on this issue may be a key to saving their political hides and further gulling the constituencies who keep buying their at home lies instead of holding them accountable for their DC actions.

It’s a sickness of the system.  And needs to be addressed with term limits, which will only be addressed by a convention of the states.

The Examiner:

At first glance, it may seem remarkable that 15 Senate Democrats — including three considered most vulnerable to losing their re-election campaigns in November — signed a letter last week encouraging the Environmental Protection Agency to delay its planned issuance of a controversial new regulation. That regulation would limit carbon emissions by power plants that burn coal, which generate almost half of America’s electricity.

The 15 Democrats were joined by 30 Republican senators in asking EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to double the usual public comment period from 60 days to 120 days. With the EPA set to unveil the rule on June 2, the normal comment period would put issuance of the final version of the new regulation right at the outset of the most crucial phase of the 2014 election campaign. With the 120-day comment period, that won’t happen until after the election. (Curious, isn’t it, that 30 GOP senators support something that would aid vulnerable Democrats in November?)

Curious only if you believe the theater of a viable, adversarial two-party system — and pretend that the establishment, regardless of party, doesn’t stand first with the establishment, and only secondarily, when possible, with their maddeningly demanding, oafish constituencies.

But I digress.

The three most vulnerable Democrats are Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska. Landrieu and Begich represent states with rich oil and natural gas resources, while Pryor confronts an electorate that has voted red in national elections. The letter this vulnerable trio signed argues that “affordable, reliable, and redundant sources of electricity are essential to the economic well-being of our states and the quality of life of our constituents. While we all agree that clean air is vitally important, EPA has an obligation to understand the impacts that regulations have on all segments of society.”

[…]  the new EPA rule will mean a huge boost in electricity prices across the country. The rule is a key part of the program President Obama had in mind when he conceded in 2007 that “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket” under his administration. The carbon emissions ceiling under the proposed EPA rule would be impossible for most, if not all, of the country’s 1,308 coal-fired electricity generating power plants to meet.

The new rule comes on top of another key component of the Obama program, the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxic Standards that take effect in 2015. The MATS compliance period may be extended a year by state environmental authorities, but that will only delay the consequences until 2016. Arkansas is among the most coal-dependent states in the country, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. No wonder Pryor wants to delay the EPA rule until after Arkansas voters choose between keeping him in the Senate or electing his Republican challenger, Rep. Tom Cotton.

The letter encourages McCarthy to remember that “the upcoming proposal will be far more complex and critical for the industry to deal with than the proposal for new plants, and stakeholders will need time to analyze the rule and determine its impact on individual power plants, reliability and consumer cost, and on the electric system as a whole.” Voters may ask why these senators are just now realizing that fact.

Which would be the wrong question.  The right one being, how did we fall for their bullshit the first time — and can we please just vote today to make sure they’re out of office before they get a chance to push these issues beyond the next election cycle?

Because then we’re talking.

Posted by Jeff G. @ 10:31am

Comments (7)

  1. 15 Senate Democrats — including three considered most vulnerable to losing their re-election campaigns in November — signed a letter last week encouraging the Environmental Protection Agency to DELAY its planned issuance of a controversial new regulation.

    Not rescind, not retract, not “forget it, and resign for even having proposed.”


    No further comment necessary, really.

  2. it’s so hard to see the Bohenerfag McConnellwhore Meghan’s P.O.S. Coward Daddy Republicans as any kind of alternative anymore

    and it seems like getting ass-raped by fascist whores like food stamp and lunch lady makes a lot of Americans very very very happy, and Landrieu Pryor and Begich are always there when it counts to hold an enthusiastic (if a bit struggly) little rape victim down


  3. The number to call is BR-549.

  4. – Give any Progturd enough time and sooner or later they will shit where they eat. Its a compulsive mental disease with them.

  5. Gas is 4.08 here today. For no reason. It’s 30 cents cheaper the next town over (22 miles away). I’m just venting because my oldest has been home for a week and has used ALL of my gas in ALL of my cars driving his friends around because they have no jobs. If they fuck with the big coal burning power plant in town, half of them never will have jobs.

    I’m pissy, broke and tired. It would be nice if the TV news still mentioned the average price of a gallon of gasoline every night. You know, like they did when it was 2.25.

  6. Hereabouts the smart area to gas up is about three miles from where I used to live, and the most expensive about one mile from it the other direction. Closest to home now has been firmly in the mid $3.70s for more than a month while most everywhere else has come down 10 to 25¢ since then.

  7. More along the lines of the news that isn’t, because it doesn’t fit teh narrative:

    Saw an interesting item on the local news last night when thel ABC affiliate repeated some ABC News filler story. Should college grads strike out on their own, or move back home? The interviewee was a female grad who studied screen writing. The question kind of answers itself, regardless of what miss newly certified and credentialed screen writrix thinks, doesn’t it?

    Anyway, the real news item that was only mentioned in passing at the very end of the hard choices what do? fluff piece: Home ownership among 20 somethings (or mid 20 to mid 30 somethings –I forget the demographic) is at all time lows because of crushing student debt and stringent lending standards.

    But mostly because of stringent lending standards, which are loosening up ABC News reported.

    Yay us.