Obama’s ‘clean power’: It costs too much |

Obama’s ‘clean power’: It costs too much

The Obama administration’s claim that the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan” will “reduce energy bills for households and businesses” long has defied common sense. After all, it forces the replacement of coal-fired power plants with more expensive electricity sources. Now, a new study quantifies those cost differences, confirming the administration’s duplicity.

Thomas Pyle is president of the Institute for Energy Research, which did the study. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, he says it’s “the first of its kind to compare the cost of electricity from existing sources with that of new sources.”

Using federal data reported by electricity generators, the study found one megawatt-hour of electricity from existing nuclear plants costs an average of $29.60. Comparable figures for existing hydro-, coal- and natural-gas-powered plants are $34.20, $38.40 and $48.90, respectively.

But for new natural gas plants, it’s $73.40, and for new wind turbines, $106.80 — with the dramatic cost differences due largely to capital costs and the requirement for natural gas-fired plants to “be ramped up and down rapidly” as winds blow and calm.

Mr. Pyle urges states, which are supposed to submit compliance plans or see the feds impose their own, to “think twice about working with the EPA.” As he puts it, building new power plants to comply “would impose expensive and unnecessary costs — and the public would foot the bill,” with low-income households hit hardest.

Ah, another “progressive” pig in a poke.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.