Trump EPA pick: ‘Heavy hand of EPA’ didn’t bring coal’s decline - See more at: http://www.wvgazettem

[moe]

Pruitt will do what he can to roll back BO environmental regs but he doesn't blame them for coal's decline. I guess the attorneys general's lawsuits are symbolic.

Citing the “shift in the electricity generation mix” away from coal and toward natural gas and his own state’s gas industry, Pruitt told lawmakers, “Rather, it happened because of fracking and the positive market forces that those sorts of Oklahoma innovations create.”
Pruitt, though, offered a different version of what’s likely to happen to the nation’s coal industry, telling the Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that “market-driven” reductions in coal’s share of the nation’s energy mix are likely to continue “for years to come.”“As natural gas becomes increasingly affordable, it becomes an increasingly attractive alternative to coal,” Pruitt testified.
James Van Nostrand, a professor and director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at the West Virginia University College of Law, wondered last week what the point of reversing the EPA’s climate change rules or, more broadly, dismantling the agency would be if federal environmental rules were not the central cause of the coal industry’s downturn.“[Pruitt] pretty much admits that the EPA is not the driver in the decline of the coal industry, yet rails about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the coal industry,” Van Nostrand said. “The Trump con game continues: The EPA was not the cause of the decline of the coal industry, and dismantling the EPA is not going to bring the coal industry back. Pruitt’s testimony concedes this point.”

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/2...k-heavy-hand-of-epa-didnt-bring-coals-decline

 

[MountaineerWV]

I've said this since the early 1990's.....but nobody seemed to listen in my family. But as soon as the "War on Coal" statements began, everyone's attention focused on the EPA and Democrats and Climate Change. Not what ACTUALLY was the problems......

 

[WVPATX]

Pruitt will do what he can to roll back BO environmental regs but he doesn't blame them for coal's decline. I guess the attorneys general's lawsuits are symbolic.

Citing the “shift in the electricity generation mix” away from coal and toward natural gas and his own state’s gas industry, Pruitt told lawmakers, “Rather, it happened because of fracking and the positive market forces that those sorts of Oklahoma innovations create.”
Pruitt, though, offered a different version of what’s likely to happen to the nation’s coal industry, telling the Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that “market-driven” reductions in coal’s share of the nation’s energy mix are likely to continue “for years to come.”“As natural gas becomes increasingly affordable, it becomes an increasingly attractive alternative to coal,” Pruitt testified.
James Van Nostrand, a professor and director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at the West Virginia University College of Law, wondered last week what the point of reversing the EPA’s climate change rules or, more broadly, dismantling the agency would be if federal environmental rules were not the central cause of the coal industry’s downturn.“[Pruitt] pretty much admits that the EPA is not the driver in the decline of the coal industry, yet rails about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the coal industry,” Van Nostrand said. “The Trump con game continues: The EPA was not the cause of the decline of the coal industry, and dismantling the EPA is not going to bring the coal industry back. Pruitt’s testimony concedes this point.”

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/2...k-heavy-hand-of-epa-didnt-bring-coals-decline

Anyone that denies Obama's war on coal did not impact the industry is dreaming. The EPA rules had a significant impact. It forced the closure of coal burning plants. Yes, natural gas, which has always been a competitor, had an impact. And that is good. Market forces should drive changes like this. But natural gas has not always been this cheap and utilities have the ability to alter fuels when prices dictate.

Libs complain about Trump jawboning Carrier. What did Obama do to utility executives? LOL.

 

[dave]

Anyone that denies Obama's war on coal did not impact the industry is dreaming. The EPA rules had a significant impact. It forced the closure of coal burning plants. Yes, natural gas, which has always been a competitor, had an impact. And that is good. Market forces should drive changes like this. But natural gas has not always been this cheap and utilities have the ability to alter fuels when prices dictate.

Libs complain about Trump jawboning Carrier. What did Obama do to utility executives? LOL.

Exactly. Poor libs cant see the forest for the trees.

 

[mneilmont]

Anyone that denies Obama's war on coal did not impact the industry is dreaming. The EPA rules had a significant impact. It forced the closure of coal burning plants. Yes, natural gas, which has always been a competitor, had an impact. And that is good. Market forces should drive changes like this. But natural gas has not always been this cheap and utilities have the ability to alter fuels when prices dictate.

Libs complain about Trump jawboning Carrier. What did Obama do to utility executives? LOL.

It probably is not necessary to disband EPA. Just remove the excessive and needless regulations on coal and see if the operators can be price competitive. There is too much energy from coal available to kill it as an option. Get heavy hand of government out of way and find out where the market takes us.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Anyone that denies Obama's war on coal did not impact the industry is dreaming. The EPA rules had a significant impact. It forced the closure of coal burning plants. Yes, natural gas, which has always been a competitor, had an impact. And that is good. Market forces should drive changes like this. But natural gas has not always been this cheap and utilities have the ability to alter fuels when prices dictate.

Libs complain about Trump jawboning Carrier. What did Obama do to utility executives? LOL.

I think I'll take the opinion of WVU Law and Engineering professors over yours.

They have been drilling Marcellus and Utica shales like crazy in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Oklahoma.

 

[dave]

I think I'll take the opinion of WVU Law and Engineering professors over yours.

They have been drilling Marcellus and Utica shales like crazy in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Oklahoma.

I dont think anyone is drilling in New York and Marcellus and Utica formations are not in Oklahoma. Utica is mostly in Ohio.

Not much of what has been drilled is on the market though. Transmission infrastructure is only now coming online.

 

[WVPATX]

I think I'll take the opinion of WVU Law and Engineering professors over yours.

They have been drilling Marcellus and Utica shales like crazy in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Oklahoma.

I think you are misrepresenting what the law professor said. He is not claiming proof that the EPA did not harm the coal industry. He is quoting Pruitt. Read his comments again.

 

[mneilmont]

I think I'll take the opinion of WVU Law and Engineering professors over yours.

They have been drilling Marcellus and Utica shales like crazy in Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and Oklahoma.

Interesting, they have been "fracking" in Oklahoma for over a hundred years without incident yet the environmentalist and left leaning politicians want to block drilling via that method apply a **** load of regulations when practiced.

You have got to keep sharp eye on those WVU lawyers who contract for the federal government for a profit. They will bend the rules a bit to be kept on retainer(I hear).

 

[dave]

Ken Ward is a tree hugging **** for brains so this article isnt surprising.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Interesting, they have been "fracking" in Oklahoma for over a hundred years without incident yet the environmentalist and left leaning politicians want to block drilling via that method apply a **** load of regulations when practiced.

You have got to keep sharp eye on those WVU lawyers who contract for the federal government for a profit. They will bend the rules a bit to be kept on retainer(I hear).

Hydro fracking is new. Previously, they couldn't make the change from a vertical drill to a horizontal drill in the same hole.

Without incident?

They have linked earthquakes with hydraulic fracturing, some of the largest in Oklahoma's history.

 

[dave]

They have linked earthquakes with hydraulic fracturing, some of the largest in Oklahoma's history.

Not so much really. Maybe injection wells.

 

[WVUCOOPER]

Interesting, they have been "fracking" in Oklahoma for over a hundred years without incident yet the environmentalist and left leaning politicians want to block drilling via that method apply a **** load of regulations when practiced.

If we want the miners back to work, we need to get fracking banned. Seeing the new EPA chief, I don't see that happening.

Trump DIGS Coal!!!

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

Not so much really. Maybe injection wells.

You really have no clue. [laughing] Just when I think I can't be more amazed at your stupidity, you go and totally amaze me.

 

[Airport]

Pruitt will do what he can to roll back BO environmental regs but he doesn't blame them for coal's decline. I guess the attorneys general's lawsuits are symbolic.

Citing the “shift in the electricity generation mix” away from coal and toward natural gas and his own state’s gas industry, Pruitt told lawmakers, “Rather, it happened because of fracking and the positive market forces that those sorts of Oklahoma innovations create.”
Pruitt, though, offered a different version of what’s likely to happen to the nation’s coal industry, telling the Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology that “market-driven” reductions in coal’s share of the nation’s energy mix are likely to continue “for years to come.”“As natural gas becomes increasingly affordable, it becomes an increasingly attractive alternative to coal,” Pruitt testified.
James Van Nostrand, a professor and director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable Development at the West Virginia University College of Law, wondered last week what the point of reversing the EPA’s climate change rules or, more broadly, dismantling the agency would be if federal environmental rules were not the central cause of the coal industry’s downturn.“[Pruitt] pretty much admits that the EPA is not the driver in the decline of the coal industry, yet rails about the impact of the Clean Power Plan on the coal industry,” Van Nostrand said. “The Trump con game continues: The EPA was not the cause of the decline of the coal industry, and dismantling the EPA is not going to bring the coal industry back. Pruitt’s testimony concedes this point.”

http://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/2...k-heavy-hand-of-epa-didnt-bring-coals-decline

The EPA has been used to legislate what the liberals want. I hope that a law is passed that says all regulations passed by any govt regulatory agency has to be approved by congress. That would take care of the really egregious regs.

 

[dave]

You really have no clue. [laughing] Just when I think I can't be more amazed at your stupidity, you go and totally amaze me.

What did I say that isn't true? Perhaps you should read up on the topic.

 

[countryroads89_rivals]

I hope that a law is passed that says all regulations passed by any govt regulatory agency has to be approved by congress.

[laughing][laughing][laughing]

You mean the Congress that can't pass a budget each year? You mean the Congress with the lowest approval rating in history?

Think about it for a minute. Think about how many federal agencies there are. Think about how many federal regulations there are. There are safety regulations associated with countless federal agencies. Congress couldn't keep up.

Dumb!

 

[WVUCOOPER]

What happened to Uncle Joey leading the EPA? I don't see such a pro natural gas guy being good for the miners.

 

[Airport]

[laughing][laughing][laughing]

You mean the Congress that can't pass a budget each year? You mean the Congress with the lowest approval rating in history?

Think about it for a minute. Think about how many federal agencies there are. Think about how many federal regulations there are. There are safety regulations associated with countless federal agencies. Congress couldn't keep up.

Dumb!

Think about how many people the EPA has put out of work. You don't care about workers, only some stupid snail darter. Maybe my quarrel is with the EPA more htan some other agencies but the EPA would be DOA if I were president.

 

[WVUBRU]

Think about how many people the EPA has put out of work. You don't care about workers, only some stupid snail darter. Maybe my quarrel is with the EPA more htan some other agencies but the EPA would be DOA if I were president.

Just think how many lives the EPA has saved . And thank goodness you will never be President .

 

[moe]

Think about how many people the EPA has put out of work. You don't care about workers, only some stupid snail darter. Maybe my quarrel is with the EPA more htan some other agencies but the EPA would be DOA if I were president.

Even a dopey president like you could not get rid of the EPA but you could dream. Thank the EPA for the clean air, land and water that you enjoy daily.

 

[bornaneer]

Thank the EPA for the clean air, land and water that you enjoy daily.

Thanks to President Nixon.

 

[Popeer]

I hope that a law is passed that says all regulations passed by any govt regulatory agency has to be approved by congress. That would take care of the really egregious regs.

Yes, if only every piece of legislation creating a regulatory agency didn't include the provision granting the agency the authority to create and enforce implementing regulations. Now why do you think they do that? Maybe because they felt like they had better things to do than get down in the weeds of the day-to-day functions of those agencies?

 

[Airport]

Yes, if only every piece of legislation creating a regulatory agency didn't include the provision granting the agency the authority to create and enforce implementing regulations. Now why do you think they do that? Maybe because they felt like they had better things to do than get down in the weeds of the day-to-day functions of those agencies?

Congress passed it just like they passed Obamacare, stupidly. You see what you get with unintended consequences.

 

[Airport]

Even a dopey president like you could not get rid of the EPA but you could dream. Thank the EPA for the clean air, land and water that you enjoy daily.

I could make them review every regulation that they have put forth since formed and order them too repeal 10%. then transfer 50% of the employees to border security.

 

[WVPATX]

I could make them review every regulation that they have put forth since formed and order them too repeal 10%. then transfer 50% of the employees to border security.

Here is what I would do. Every regulation that costs the economy over let's say $50B, should be reviewed and approved by Congress. A cost benefit analysis must be completed, by the GAO. Congress needs to start voting on these rules that destroy so many jobs. They have shirked their responsibility.

 

[WVPATX]

If we want the miners back to work, we need to get fracking banned. Seeing the new EPA chief, I don't see that happening.

Trump DIGS Coal!!!

No need to ban fracking. Just let the commodities compete. Utilities have the ability to switch fuels. When gas goes up, they'll use coal and visa versa. That's called the market and economic decisions. I don't know a coal miner that doesn't understand the need to compete. I know a lot of workers that hate the government for mandating the destruction of their jobs.

 

[Airport]

Here is what I would do. Every regulation that costs the economy over let's say $50B, should be reviewed and approved by Congress. A cost benefit analysis must be completed, by the GAO. Congress needs to start voting on these rules that destroy so many jobs. They have shirked their responsibility.

Do we even realize how much 50 billion is? I say ever regulation that costs in excess of 5 million should e reviewed.

 

[moe]

I know a lot of workers that hate the government for mandating the destruction of their jobs.

The new head of the EPA disagrees with your take on things but so does about anyone with any sense. Cheap nat gas is killing coal just like Pruitt says.

 

[WVPATX]

The new head of the EPA disagrees with your take on things but so does about anyone with any sense. Cheap nat gas is killing coal just like Pruitt says.

Pruitt is from OK, land of natural gas. No coal. Not exactly an unbiased observer. The EPA actions against coal were very good for OK. I will take the word of both WV Senators, the WV governor and common sense over Pruitt's opinion.

Read this report. The EPA action was devastating.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/e...plants-to-shut-down-from-EPA-regulations.html

 

[mneilmont]

Congress passed it just like they passed Obamacare, stupidly. You see what you get with unintended consequences.

Agency regulations have replaced congress in making law. New administrations appoint head of agency to go in a different direction without administration nor congress getting hands dirty or involved. Now you have one regulation going right, new leadership passes regulations going left without deleting any regulations. Now you have conflicting regulations. After several new administrations, multiply the original confliction by 7. Now, no one knows which reg to follow. New administration tells new leadership in agency which reg to follow and which to ignore. If that doesn't, write a new regulation.

You would think that at some point, government would audit all agencies and delete those that do not serve a purpose or duplicating what another agency does. Instead, congress renews the budget of prior year plus add COLA. Easy, and ever what the hell they do, they do not allot time to consider the agency beyond approving the COLA increase.

Do we have a government that is allowed to grow beyond the constitutional approved duties? And not doing oversight duties that are constitutionally required? Do our elected partners have no shame?

 

[mneilmont]

Yes, if only every piece of legislation creating a regulatory agency didn't include the provision granting the agency the authority to create and enforce implementing regulations. Now why do you think they do that? Maybe because they felt like they had better things to do than get down in the weeds of the day-to-day functions of those agencies?

What better things could they possibly have to do beyond constitutional required duties?

 

[Popeer]

What better things could they possibly have to do beyond constitutional required duties?

Exactly. If Congress had to get involved in minutiae like regulations, that's all they'd ever get done. They have a hard enough time fulling their "constitutionally required duties" as it is.

 

[WVPATX]

Exactly. If Congress had to get involved in minutiae like regulations, that's all they'd ever get done. They have a hard enough time fulling their "constitutionally required duties" as it is.

If a regulation has a significant impact on the economy, Congress needs to get involved and vote. We the people need out representatives to get involved in these kinds of important decisions and not leave them to unelected unaccountable bureaucrats.

 

[mneilmont]

Exactly. If Congress had to get involved in minutiae like regulations, that's all they'd ever get done. They have a hard enough time fulling their "constitutionally required duties" as it is.

Sorry, but you went off the rails there. They principally work Tue afternoon, Wed after lunch and party discussion, Thur until flight time to return home.

Most people with meaningful positions do what is necessary to get the job done. Grunts have normal jobs of 40 hours per week with some holidays and two week vacation. And even they may have to work six days a week. Just think of the time they would have if they returned home one time per month. And work Monday morning and Friday afternoon. I understand time use in home district, but they have ample staff and means of correspondence to address home district issues. They initiated Agency to get more done, and I would not argue that, but if they were serious they could do with a fraction of agency and handle job as a congressman.

Country is probably better off that they are not in DC longer to screw up more. But that has been subbed out to agency and too many laws(regs) are given to us.
My rant and IMO.

But, what the hell, they only make $175,000 a year plus benefits. What do you expect for such small salary?