When the draft version of the President’s oppressive Clean Power Plan was issued in June, North Dakota was being forced to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 11% and Wyoming by 19%. However in the final version issued in August the states were blindsided, they now have to cut their rates by over 44 percent. Similar increases were seen by all of the coal producing states.

The Governors of both states informed EE Publishing that despite EPA officials’ frequent claims of “unprecedented outreach” to states while crafting the final Clean Power Plan, they had no idea that their emission would leap by 2-4x what they were originally told.

The Clean Power Plan is the centerpiece of Obama’s Climate Action Plan announced in June 2013, and compiles with his more recent pledge to the U.N. that the U.S. will cut its carbon emissions by as much as 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.

The plan is a disaster on so many levels, the most important of which is that it will kill jobs especially in the coal industry, Wyoming is the number one coal producing state in the country, North Dakota is #9. With the U.S. labor participation rates already at disastrous low levels, the US economy will find it hard recover from these regulations and these states will be hit even harder.  On top of the loss of jobs the EPA rule is looking to replace cheap energy with more expensive alternate energy. Over all it will raise the price of energy and place an heavy burden on middle and lower economic class families.

take our poll - story continues below

Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • Do you think Cubans are fighting for healthcare or freedom from Communism?

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The EPA was so secretive about the higher emission cuts that North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) told EE Publishing that he found out about the new levels in the newspaper

“To me, to come to be that far off would suggest shoddy work,” Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) said in a separate interview.


Both states plan to challenge the rule in court. But although both governors say EPA’s new rule sets impossible carbon reduction targets that will harm their states’ economies, the two also expressed willingness to explore what their states could do to reduce carbon emissions. Both Wyoming and North Dakota are drafting compliance plans for what they think they can achieve.


“Eventually we have to be able to put forward what we think is possible for the state of North Dakota, and we’re committed to carbon reduction as much as any other state,” Dalrymple said. “This is something we want to do, but we have to determine what is possible, what is even reasonably feasible.”


Last week, Dalrymple and chief executives from eight power and coal companies that operate in and around his state came to Washington, D.C., to ask acting EPA air chief Janet McCabe how North Dakota’s goals got so much tougher and to seek a path forward.


“We know already, no matter how hard we try, there is no way that we can achieve the 45 percent reduction in the time frame that they’re talking about,” Dalrymple said.


Apparently the all of the Coal states saw their goals get much tougher under the final rule.

EPA reworked its algorithm for determining state standards, requiring more of states that produce more electricity from coal than lower-carbon natural gas.


Mead said the goals put Wyoming in a lose-lose situation. The state is responsible for coal-plant emissions, but it won’t receive credit for the zero-carbon renewable energy it sells to consumers outside its borders.


“The way that it’s set up now, it looks to us that there’s no scenario by which Wyoming would get credit,” said Mead. “We could supply huge amounts of electricity via wind to another state, and we don’t get credit for that. So in terms of regionalization and trading, if we don’t have something that we can provide in terms of credits from our side, which state is going to want to deal with us?”

The Clean Power Plan is going to hurt people all over the country. The Wall Street Journal warned:

If the EPA succeeds, Americans will be paying for decades. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the Clean Power Plan will cost $366 billion and bring double-digit electricity-rate increases to 43 states. Regulators including the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warn that the plan could weaken the reliability of the national electric grid by forcing many power plants to close well before new ones can be built. Yet even the administration admits that the EPA plan will have only a trivial impact on the climate.

A  study commissioned by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and published this past June predicts the new regulation will leave minority communities with disproportionately fewer jobs, lower incomes and higher poverty than whites.

Recently Senator Shelly Moore Capito (D-WVA) confronted the EPA about the Clean Power Plan at a senate hearing. Ms. Capito rightly believed the agenda would have a negative impact on the nation’s (and West Virginia’s) poor and middle class families.

The administration has not given enough consideration of the “human cost” of stricter regulations on ozone levels, particularly the cost to middle- and lower-income families, Capito said. She cited projections estimating the cost of energy will rise 17 to 22 percent as a result of the regulation. She said this will have an impact on the 430,000 middle- and lower-income people who make an average of $1,900 a month and spend 17 percent of their income on energy.

The cost to families in higher energy costs and loss of jobs is not important to EPA, the president, or any of the climate change fundamentalists. They are so caught up in their unproven hypothesis, they ignore the facts like the fact the Earth hasn’t warmed in 18 years and 8 months, or that the arctic ice cap is at a ten year high, because they are so set on destroying the economy with this scheme whose real purpose is redistribution of income world wide.