Washington Examiner continues to deny EPA finding that Obama power plant regulations on CO2 emissions will have no effect on CO2 emissions

.

Two recent Washington Examiner articles, 1/7/14, and 12/5/13:

.

1/7/14, “Joe Biden: Expect more extreme weather,“ Washington Examiner, Meghashyam  Mali (a Washington Examiner Assistant Managing Editor)

.

“President Obama has vowed to make climate change a priority in his second term, bypassing Congress to enact tougher carbon emission standards on new and existing power power plants  through the Environmental Protection Agency.”... 
================
Washington Examiner author and Assistant Managing Editor Mali doesn’t define what he means by

• “climate change“ or “carbon emission standards“

but if he refers generally to carbon dioxide emissions, the US EPA on Sept. 20,  2013 clearly states its planned power plant emissions rules will have no effect on CO2 emissions: “The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes,” (p. 346, Fed. Register, posted below)

At the end of Mali’s 1/7 article is stated: “Energy & Environment Reporter Zack Colman contributed to this report.” Colman’s “contribution” didn’t include the important fact that Obama’s power plant emissions rules

• will have no effect on CO2 emissions.

In Zack Colman’s own Washington Examiner article on Dec. 5, 2013 he either denies or has no knowledge of the Sept. 20, 2013 US EPA statements that Obama’s new power plant rules will have no effect on CO2 emissions. Colman instead states Obama’s actions will “address climate change through curbing greenhouse gas emissions,” “and could have a significant impact.” These statements are at odds with EPA Sept. 20, 2013 conclusions, p. 346. From Colman’s 12/5/13 article:
.
12/5/13, “Obama directs federal government to triple renewable power use,“ Washington Examiner, by Zack Colman

“President Obama directed federal agencies and the military to nearly triple renewable energy consumption by the end of the decade, setting a target of getting 20 percent of electricity from renewable sources.

The move, which comes through executive order, is the latest in a series of administrative efforts the White House has employed to address climate change through curbing greenhouse gas emissions. And focusing on the federal government — the nation’s largest energy user — could have a significant impact.…

Obama pledged in June to lean on regulations and executive authority

• to address climate change,

as Republicans in the House and the Senate — with some centrist Democrats — have been resistant

• to legislation
• that would cut carbon pollution.”…

• =======================

From the EPA: “The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes.“ p. 346. Washington Examiner reporting that Obama’s new rules will “curb” or otherwise “impact” emissions is not accurate. Also the author doesn’t define the term “carbon pollution.”

• ===============================

Washington Examiner 12/5/13 article shows a member of America’s bravest wielding a solar panel:



“In this photo taken on Friday, Aug. 28, 2009, U.S. Army Capt. Javier Abarca, chief of maintenance, holds one of the 5,040 solar panels that will be installed as part of a solar energy farm on Buckley Air Force Base in Aurora, Colo. (AP File)” via Washington Examiner, 12/5/13, “Obama directs federal government to triple renewable power use,” Zack Colman

• ===============================

EPA  text 9/20/13 (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no effect on CO2 emissions:

Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register”

• page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”
  

p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?” “The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022. The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.

p. 346, F. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?  As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)

========================
Ed. note: Google/blogger is not happy about this post. They keep moving the text around.
.
.