All Solar, Et Al, In 12 Years?

[Pittsburgh Pete]

That addressing many of these issues will have an economic impact has been a constant and recurring theme. Where have you been?

 

[Randolph Kinney]

October 26, 2015

• Southern, Turner Renewable jointly acquired eight solar farms
• Morelos del Sol will sell output to PG&E under 20-year deal

Southern Co., the third-biggest U.S. utility owner, acquired a 15-megawatt solar farm in central California, extending its clean-energy partnership with Turner Renewable Energy LLC.

The acquisition of the Morelos del Sol project in Kern County is Southern’s eighth solar deal with Ted Turner’s renewable-energy company since 2010, the Atlanta-based utility company said in a statement Monday. Terms of the purchase from Solar Frontier KK weren’t disclosed.

Morelos del Sol is expected to be completed in November. It uses thin-film solar panels mounted on single-axis trackers and will sell its output to PG&E Corp. under a 20-year contract. Southern and Turner now own more than 320 megawatts of solar capacity together.

Solar Frontier, a unit of Japan’s Showa Shell Sekiyu KK, is developing nine solar projects in the U.S., according to a separate statement Monday.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...o-and-turner-acquire-california-solar-project

Money money money! It's all about the money. If it were not for law that forces utilities to buy 50% of their electric power from solar and wind, these project could never be built or compete with fossil fuels. The price of electricity has skyrocketed and it will continue to go up.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Two dozen states sue Obama over coal plant emissions rule

A coalition of 24 states and a coal mining company filed lawsuits Friday to challenge the most significant piece of President Obama’s environmental agenda, his signature climate change rule for power plants.

The litigants accuse the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of going far beyond the authority Congress granted to it by ordering a significant transformation of states’ electricity generation, moving away from fossil fuels like coal and toward lower-carbon sources like wind and solar power.

They are asking the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn the rule. They also want the court to immediately stop its implementation while it works its way through the courts.

West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R), who is leading the legal fight against the plan, called it “the single most onerous and illegal regulations that we’ve seen coming out of D.C. in a long time.”

On a call with reporters, Morrisey repeated many of the long-held arguments against the rule: that it will hurt his state’s coal mining industry, raise power rates for consumers and risk electricity reliability.

“EPA’s rule is flatly illegal and one of the most aggressive executive branch power grabs we’ve seen in a long time,” he said. “The EPA cannot do what it intends to do legally.”

Morrissey said he wants the court to rule on a stay “as soon as possible.” He noted it took a federal judge about a month to delay an EPA water regulation earlier this month, and said that could be a “guidepost” for how long litigation might take.

The climate rule, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, seeks a 32 percent cut in the power sector’s carbon emissions by 2030, compared with 2005 levels. Each state has been assigned a specific emissions goal based on its unique circumstances, with flexibility in how the goals are met.

West Virginia and Murray led a similar coalition in two lawsuits earlier this year against the regulation that were deemed premature by the D.C. court. The first was before the final rule had been announced, and the second was in August, before it was published in the Federal Register.

The Obama administration has been steadfast in its defense of the legal backing of the rule.

The EPA said its rule is legal and will pass all court challenges.

“The Clean Power Plan has strong scientific and legal foundations, provides states with broad flexibilities to design and implement plans, and is clearly within EPA’s authority under the Clean Air Act,” EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a Friday statement.

“We are confident we will again prevail against these challenges and will be able to work with states to successfully implement these first-ever national standards to limit carbon pollution the largest source of carbon emissions in the United States,” she said.

The West Virginia and Murray lawsuits came the day the rule was published in the Federal Register, the first day court challenges can legally be filed.

The states joining West Virginia are Texas, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Arizona and North Carolina.

The attorneys general of 15 liberal states, along with the District of Columbia and New York City, are planning to intervene in the lawsuit to support the EPA.

Those state and city officials, led by New York State, said in August that they “fully anticipate defending the rules if they are challenged in court.”

Friday also marks the first day lawmakers can file challenges under the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to quickly overturn regulations.

Lawmakers are mobilizing quickly against the new climate change rule from President Obama, announcing they will file formal congressional challenges on Monday.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Friday said he and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.VA.) will introduce a CRA resolution to block the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pollution standards for new power plants.

Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.VA.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) will introduce a resolution opposing the EPA’s existing power plant rule at the same time. McConnell’s office said he will schedule a vote on the resolutions shortly afterward.

“I have vowed to do all I can to fight back against this administration on behalf of the thousands of Kentucky coal miners and their families, and this CRA is another tool in that battle,” McConnell said in a statement.

“The CRAs that we will file will allow Congress the ability to fight these anti-coal regulations.”

In the House, Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.) will introduce the resolutions.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ates-coal-company-sue-obama-over-climate-rule

Courts have overturned EPA before and it will this time. EPA refused to publish its science on the issue.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

But the lawsuits and the initiatives in Congress send a powerful message to the international community ahead of the Paris climate conference next month that Obama faces significant opposition to his efforts to cut America’s carbon pollution and sign on to a global deal to fight climate change.

Obama launched his climate change plan in mid-2013, and the EPA rules were issued in early August. But the lawsuits could not go ahead until Friday, when the rules were finally published.

In addition to the legal challenges, Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, has said he will invoke a little-used piece of legislation that enables members of Congress to vote down new rules by a simple majority.

The White House has said it would veto any effort in Congress to overturn the EPA rules.

Republicans are also trying to block the US from signing on to a climate deal in Paris by requiring Obama to submit any agreement to approval by the Senate.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/23/obama-carbon-coal-power-plant-epa-lawsuit-republicans

I believe the SCOTUS will have to step in quickly if an injunction is issued by the appellate court by the Obama administration. For sure, there will be an appeal to SCOTUS in any case.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

The legal challengers are expected to contest the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority on a range of grounds, some of them little explored by the courts. Industry associations and companies, including coal producer Murray Energy, also began filing separate cases.

The EPA is relying upon a seldom-used section of the Clean Air Act called 111(d) as its authority for the rules, which leaves an opening for legal scrutiny. Challengers are expected to focus on whether the agency exceeded its powers by pushing utilities to shift to cleaner forms of energy instead of just focusing on pollution controls at fossil-fuel-fired power plants.

The side that ultimately loses at the D.C. Circuit is likely to seek intervention from the Supreme Court.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-carbon-rules-to-face-lawsuits-congressional-tests-1445611059

24 states suing the EPA and companies suing separately will freeze the appellate docket for some time to come.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Missouri’s Democratic attorney general announced on Friday that his state will join a federal lawsuit seeking to block the implementation of controversial new Environmental Protection Agency regulations.

State attorney general Chris Koster, who is running for governor, said EPA’s new rule on power plant carbon emissions “effectively eliminates Missouri’s competitive advantage as a low energy-cost state.”

Missouri will join a handful of other states that have sued to block the regulation, he announced.

http://freebeacon.com/uncategorized/dem-ag-joins-federal-lawsuit-against-epa-regulations/

No reason for companies to relocate to states with coal powered electricity, unless EPA is restrained by the courts.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Environmental Groups Slam Arizona's Decision to Join Lawsuit Against EPA

PHOENIX - Climate change groups are speaking out against Arizona's participation in a lawsuit to block the "carbon rule" section of President Obama's Clean Power Plan.

On Friday, Arizona joined 23 other states in suing the Environmental Protection Agency saying its plan to force states to cut carbon emissions is an unconstitutional overreach of federal authority.

Arizona's utilities have said they cannot meet those standards in time. Lopez says the final rule already was a compromise.

"The EPA accommodated utilities because they were complaining throughout the process," he says. "They fought this to water it down. They were given what they wanted, yet they sued the EPA."

The Clean Power Plan is now the law of the land. Barring a successful court challenge, the state will have to come up with a transition plan, or the feds will step in and enforce the rule on their terms.

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/20...decision-to-join-lawsuit-against-epa/a48667-1

Well rate hikes will be the solution to implement the EPA requirements to buy green energy like California. How does 68% increase from 11.29 cents per kwh sound? Plenty hot in Arizona. Get use to $700 a month utility bills in the summer.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Coal still plays a big role in Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Treasurer Rob McCord’s recent op-ed supporting the EPA’s so-called Clean Power Plan mandating carbon emission standards (“Pennsylvania Should Embrace the New-Energy Economy,” Dec. 30) came up short in several respects.

Mr. McCord acknowledged that compliance with the proposed standards could create economic damage and would be “tough to embrace.” That would be particularly so in Pennsylvania, one of the country’s top energy-producing states, which provides a significant proportion of the electricity for consumers and businesses in the eastern United States.

What he failed to consider is that all of the U.S. coal-fired power plants combined account for a mere 4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. In comparison, coal-fired power generation in only two developing nations, China and India, account for 20 percent, and they are increasing their reliance on coal.

So, despite the considerable consequences in Pennsylvania — the endangering of thousands of family-sustaining jobs, increased electric rates and a diminished supply of reliable baseload electricity — the proposed emission standards would provide little, if any, environmental benefit.

The coal industry already has made significant strides in reducing all types of emissions, including sulfur, nitrogen, particulates and carbon. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection reported carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants in the state declined by 12 percent between 2008 and 2013.

The proposed standards for existing power plants cannot be met with commercially available technology. Contrary to Mr. McCord’s assertion, targeting one industry by imposing impossible-to-meet standards is the antithesis of “real flexibility.”

Renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydro are a welcome addition to America’s energy landscape. However, in Pennsylvania, these sources combined make up only 3 percent of the electric portfolio, even with the assistance of the state and federal grants used by several of the companies touted by Mr. McCord. It is impractical to assume that these sources could replace coal’s market share of 40 percent in Pennsylvania and 39 percent nationally even with continued availability of subsidies and grants.

Coal, gas and nuclear energy account for nearly 88 percent of U.S. electricity generation, renewables for only 12 percent. The Energy Information Administration projects that renewables will account for only 16 percent by 2040.

According to the Pennsylvania Economy League of Greater Pittsburgh, the coal industry supports more than 36,000 jobs across all sectors of Pennsylvania’s workforce and contributes more than $4.5 billion per year to the state’s economy. Of the 36,000 jobs, some 13,000 are family-sustaining coal-industry jobs, the kinds of jobs we worry about losing to other countries. These jobs provide a strong tax base and add to the state budget annually. In 2011, the coal industry contributed $1.1 billion to the state general fund.

Mr. McCord’s recounting of Pittsburgh’s transformation from steel production to high tech is inspiring. But that transformation would not have been possible if electricity prices were up to 100 percent higher, which has been the experience in some nations and regions of this country when the most affordable and reliable energy source — coal — has been removed from the electricity-generation picture. Pennsylvania electric rates make the state attractive for businesses and manufacturing.

A recent study conducted by NERA Consulting showed that if the Clean Power Plan is enacted as proposed, Pennsylvania’s electric rates will increase by up to 31 percent. For the 2.4 million low-income and middle-income families in Pennsylvania that spend, on average, 19 percent of their after-tax income on energy — almost 50 percent of the state’s households — this rate increase would leave many in the cold.

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...e-the-economy-John-Pippy/stories/201501210023

Pete can blame himself for being duped. Stand back and watch your state crumble.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

Clean Power Plan could limit Pa.’s energy future

On Oct. 9, the Environmental Protection Agency received yet another legal slap on the wrist for its overreaching rule-making — this time on “Water of the United States,” an attempt to regulate water sources nationwide. Eighteen states joined in petitioning the Sixth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals to review the rule, which lead to the court’s decision to issue a nationwide stay pending conclusive determination of the legality of the action and blocking implementation.

This past June, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded another EPA rule on mercury air toxins back to the D.C. Court, ruling that the regulation “caused more harm than good” and that the costs of compliance on the public and economy were just too high.

The EPA’s recent track record of circumventing Congress and sidestepping the democratic process has forced our elected representatives to spend time and resources reining in a rogue agency through the introduction of legislation.

The Review Act, introduced by Rep. Tom Marino, R-Pa., is one such rule designed to stop “high impact rules” with costs more than $1 billion annually from taking effect until court challenges to the regulation have been settled. Over the past decade, the EPA has introduced 19 “high impact rules” with costs more than $90 billion. The “Clean Power Plan” by the EPA’s own estimate will cost $8.4 billion annually through 2030 and business organizations have put the cost at more than $37 billion annually. As Pennsylvania rushes to develop and submit a compliance plan by 2016, it should be noted that the costs associated with the “Clean Power Plan” will be much higher than those of the MATS rule.

Because of the complexity of the electric market and grid, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission urged EPA to allow states more time to develop their state implementation plans in order to avoid potential blackouts and drastic price increases. As a result, EPA altered the final rule to allow states to easily request a two-year extension and ultimately submit a final plan in 2018. Unfortunately, the state DEP still plans to submit the final and federally enforceable plan by the fall of 2016.

The Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission’s comments to the EPA stated that “this (rule) will heavily impact and change the composition of electric generation into the future which may both reduce the supply of and increase the price of electricity while threatening the reliability of electricity service to the state and the region.”

The “Clean Power Plan” is a federal state energy policy disguised as an environmental regulation. Congress never granted authority to the EPA to determine how this country produces or consumes electricity and as the PUC also pointed out in its comments, the Federal Power Act is clear that states have primacy in determining an energy market that meets their unique needs and utilizes their unique resources.

Both the U.S. and Pennsylvania have proven that it is possible to grow our economy, produce energy and protect the environment without the need for federal overreach. Since 1970, the domestic consumption from increasingly clean coal has risen 163 percent while regulated emissions from coal-fired power plants were reduced by 85 percent — meeting and exceeding the EPA’s regulated air quality emissions mandated by the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. These statistics prove that given the appropriate amount of time and regulatory structure, technologies for burning coal cleaner have been developed and do work.

Given the high costs and the EPA’s track record of legally dubious regulations, it is in Pennsylvania’s best interest to take a very cautious approach and utilize the full three years allowed under the rule to answer the critical questions concerning the price, reliability and total cost of compliance. Pennsylvania’s energy future is too important an issue to rush into and get wrong.

John Pippy, of Harrisburg, is CEO of the Pennsylvania Coal Alliance. He wrote this for the CDT.


Read more here: http://www.centredaily.com/2015/10/23/4980302/their-view-clean-power-plan-could.html#storylink=cpy

Everybody in Pennsylvania bend over and get the California treatment. It's expensive being green.

 

[Randolph Kinney]

French Mathematical Calculation Society: Global Warming Crusade is absurd and pointless

The Société de Calcul Mathématique SA, in France has issued a long in depth white paper on climate change:

“The battle against global warming: an absurd,costly and pointless crusade”
“The battle against global warming“ 195 page PDF

The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious.

There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘

“Conclusions based on any kind of model should be disregarded. As the SCM specializes in building mathematical models, we should also be recognized as competent to criticize them. Models are useful when attempting to review our knowledge, but they should not be used as an aid to decision-making until they have been validated.”


The English Translation of the Calculation Mathematical Society, SA web page. SCM was established in 1987, by University professor, Dr. Bernard Beauzamy. Their “first specialty” is mathematical modeling.

A few excerpts of this long paper below

Summary
All public policies, in France, Europe and throughout the world, find their origin and inspiration in the battle against global warming.

The impact on the entire field of scientific research is particularly clear and especially pernicious. No project can be launched, on any subject whatsoever, unless it makes direct reference to global warming. You want to look at the geology of the Garonne Basin? It is, after all, an entirely normal and socially useful subject in every respect. Well, your research will be funded, approved and published only if it mentions the potential for geological storage of CO2. It is appalling.

The crusade has invaded every area of activity and everyone‘s thinking: the battle against CO2 has become a national priority. How have we reached this point, in a country that claims to be rational?

At the root lie the declarations made by the IPPC, which have been repeated over the years and taken up by the European Commission and the Member States. France, which likes to see itself as the good boy of Europe‘, adds an extra layer of virtue to every crusade. When others introduce reductions, we will on principle introduce bigger reductions, without ever questioning their appropriateness: a crusade is virtuous by its very nature. And you can never be too virtuous.

But mathematicians do not believe in crusades; they look at facts, figures, observations and arguments.

Part 1: The facts
Chapter 1: The crusade is absurd
There is not a single fact, figure or observation that leads us to conclude that the world‘s climate is in any way disturbed‘. It is variable, as it has always been, but rather less so now than during certain periods or geological eras. Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet‘s global temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.

Concentrations of CO2 vary, as they always have done; the figures that are being released are biased and dishonest. Rising sea levels are a normal phenomenon linked to upthrust buoyancy; they are nothing to do with so-called global warming. As for extreme weather events – they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past. We ourselves have processed the raw data on hurricanes.

Chapter 2: The crusade is costly

Direct aid for industries that are completely unviable (such as photovoltaics and wind turbines) but presented as ‗virtuous‘ runs into billions of euros, according to recent reports published by the Cour des Comptes (French Audit Office) in 2013. But the highest cost lies in the principle of ‗energy saving‘, which is presented as especially virtuous. Since no civilization can develop when it is saving energy, ours has stopped developing: France now has more than three million people unemployed – it is the price we have to pay for our virtue.

Chapter 3: The crusade is pointless

If we in France were to stop all industrial activity (let‘s not talk about our intellectual activity, which ceased long ago), if we were to eradicate all trace of animal life, the composition of the atmosphere would not alter in any measurable, perceptible way.

This just goes to show the truth of the matter: we are fighting for a cause (reducing CO2 emissions) that serves absolutely no purpose, in which we alone believe, and which we can do nothing about. You would probably have to go quite a long way back in human history to find such a mad obsession.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/fr...lobal-warming-crusade-is-aburd-and-pointless/

The French get it and so do mathematicians. Pete? No so much.