While Trump's actions might keep some coal plants operating longer, particularly in states without renewable portfolio standards, it is unlikely that they will result in the construction of any new coal generating stations. The concern that a future climate alarmist administration might reimpose a 90% CCS or CCUS requirement on relatively new coal generators would be a significant deterrent, since it appears highly unlikely that 90% reduction could be achieved in a retrofit installation at anything approaching reasonable cost.
You and I are on the same wavelength there. It would be a huge loss of investment to build anything new if the next administration reimposed the emissions standards.
Nicely done, as usual. However, a question: the EO on state over reach concerns me. While nothing pisses me off more that state regs promoting green energy, I wonder about the constitutionality of the EO in the first place. Were I a radical legislature (think, California or Nebraska), I would argue the 10th Amendment gives us the right to regulate plant siting. The Emergency Powers Act seems heavy-handed. Your thoughts, ma'am?
Right as usual, Barry. The cop-out answer is that we'll have to wait and see what the courts think, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm concerned about federalism, as always. And from a political standpoint, if this is constitutional, what prevents a 2028 Democratic President from declaring a climate emergency and doing whatever it pleases over state laws?
(An editorial note: It would be a lot easier to be full-on opposed to anything Trump does, or full-on in support of anything Trump does, but good and bad policies can come from anywhere. For this one, my jury is still out and I'm curious to see what arguments the federal government might make to support it).
I my mind, the cop-out answer is you do what ever you can get away with. Better to ask forgiveness than permission.
The larger issue here, though, isn't the constitutionality of a specific action, but a complete failure on the part of first the Administration and then Congress from issuing a comprehensive national energy policy. The sad deal about that is that such a deal is never in the Congressman's best interest, that is, to get re-elected. We see that now with republican reticence in wind states to rescind subsidies. It is this sort of thing that forces executive over-reach.
While Trump's actions might keep some coal plants operating longer, particularly in states without renewable portfolio standards, it is unlikely that they will result in the construction of any new coal generating stations. The concern that a future climate alarmist administration might reimpose a 90% CCS or CCUS requirement on relatively new coal generators would be a significant deterrent, since it appears highly unlikely that 90% reduction could be achieved in a retrofit installation at anything approaching reasonable cost.
You and I are on the same wavelength there. It would be a huge loss of investment to build anything new if the next administration reimposed the emissions standards.
Nicely done, as usual. However, a question: the EO on state over reach concerns me. While nothing pisses me off more that state regs promoting green energy, I wonder about the constitutionality of the EO in the first place. Were I a radical legislature (think, California or Nebraska), I would argue the 10th Amendment gives us the right to regulate plant siting. The Emergency Powers Act seems heavy-handed. Your thoughts, ma'am?
Right as usual, Barry. The cop-out answer is that we'll have to wait and see what the courts think, and I'm not a lawyer. I'm concerned about federalism, as always. And from a political standpoint, if this is constitutional, what prevents a 2028 Democratic President from declaring a climate emergency and doing whatever it pleases over state laws?
(An editorial note: It would be a lot easier to be full-on opposed to anything Trump does, or full-on in support of anything Trump does, but good and bad policies can come from anywhere. For this one, my jury is still out and I'm curious to see what arguments the federal government might make to support it).
Forgot to mention. Great piece, please keep up the good work!
You are very complimentary, thank you! I'm glad you're enjoying my work. :)
I my mind, the cop-out answer is you do what ever you can get away with. Better to ask forgiveness than permission.
The larger issue here, though, isn't the constitutionality of a specific action, but a complete failure on the part of first the Administration and then Congress from issuing a comprehensive national energy policy. The sad deal about that is that such a deal is never in the Congressman's best interest, that is, to get re-elected. We see that now with republican reticence in wind states to rescind subsidies. It is this sort of thing that forces executive over-reach.
Exactly. We wouldn't be in this situation if Congress hadn't abdicated so much responsibility.