EPA Continues to Ignore Damage of its Regulations

Posted by Evan Tracey at 12:08 pm, January 30, 2013

A follow up to the story we highlighted on Monday regarding the Navajo Generating Station, this time comes from the editorial board of the Arizona Republic. In the article, the board points out that research done by the plant’s operator, Salt River Project (SRP), concludes:

“SRP’s research also finds that the new emissions controls — which could cost up to $1.1 billion — would only marginally reduce the plant’s portion of that haze. Such a level of air-quality ‘improvement’ would not be perceptible to the human eye.”

The article then goes on to question the motives behind the billion dollar retrofit and asks, “If detectible haze reduction at the Grand Canyon is in dispute, that raises the broader question
of what really drives the EPA to take an action with such sweeping ramifications.” The Arizona Republic’s editorial board goes on to state, “And the EPA’s zealous and highly successful effort to close coal-fired power plants around the country is part of a conscious agenda created in Washington, D.C.”

But EPA job-killing stories aren’t only in Arizona, a recent story titled “Obama EPA kills power plant, 3,900 jobs in Texas“, points out that Chase Power, the parent company behind the $3 billion Las Brisas coal power plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, announced that it was canceling the project. Chase CEO Dave Freysinger said,“The (Las Brisas Energy Center) is a victim of EPA’s concerted effort to stifle solid-fuel energy facilities in the U.S., including EPA’s carbon-permitting requirements and EPA’s New Source Performance Standards for new power plants.”

This is just further evidence that the EPA continues to ignore the damage that its new regulations are causing to the U.S. economy and to states that depend on coal for jobs and affordable electricity.


One Response to “EPA Continues to Ignore Damage of its Regulations”

  1. [...] month we mentioned a story regarding the Navajo Generating Station that stated that EPA regulations that would require adding [...]

Leave a Reply