IF STATES GO ALONG, NEW EPA CO2 RULES WILL COST AVERAGE FAMILY $1,200 MORE A YEAR.
Thats from a Heritage Foundation Study. Another analysis concludes that part of the ‘mix in standards to cut emissions is to ‘cut electricity usage by EPA-determined amounts. My question to you: Given that Idaho has no coal generating plants, should your legislature spend time working on this issue?
Lets set aside in this short post the questions of whether these new regulations are lawful, or that they constitute an undue burden on states to implement, or that the regulatory costs alone will require vast amounts of taxpayer funds just to enforce.
Any state regulations enforcing these proposed rules will most certainly require a major overhaul of how electricity is provided to users.
The EPA talking points focus on coal fired generating plants, but of course the rules reach far more than just coal. These rules dictate (incrementally, of course) how, when, where, and how much electricity can be generated. The consensus is that, if we allow these EPA dictates, less electricity will be available to the public, which of course, increases consumer costs. Could Idaho be facing ‘brown outs? How about rationing?
Its no secret that many Americans are in financial distress. There is no way that an increase in taxpayer costs to regulate electricity generation, an increase in the costs of generating electricity, and a decrease in the availability of electricity could help that circumstance.
Increased prosperity requires the EXPANSION of electrical generation at a LOWER cost to the public. Its quite evident that the EPA is unconcerned about this absolute necessity. Nor is the agency aware of the inverse: that a DECREASE in electricity generation will most certainly result in lower living standards.
Lets face it: Central Planning from D.C. is a horrible trend. If the federal bureaucracy takes over electric generation, every citizen will be directly impacted, and many will suffer.