June EPA Mandate

[bombermwc]

I'll start off by saying I'm a proponent of the new EPA regulations for cutting emissions and that I'm 100% on board for forcing companies like OG&E to comply. PSO and the coops seem to have been able to rid themselves some from coal but OG&E just cant do it....all the while not passing that cheap price on to the consumer. In fact, they would ask for a rate increase to pad their pockets from the regulations.....the only industry I know of that isn't forced to absorb the cost of providing new products by financing rather than a straight push to the consumer? Why, because in a REAL consumer market, the consumer must be attracted to the product so if the producer jacks up the price to pay for a new manufacturing plant, the customer will leave for another company. We don't have that option with utilities, so we're stuck and continually screwed over.

Exhale.....Off soap-box


Now, since so many Republicans are against anything Obama is doing (and Oklahoma is no different), how do you all see this? I happen to be registered Republican, but haven't had a reason to vote republican in over 10 years (in most cases)....the party just lost me as it changed. So obviously from my statements above, I'm in support of this, but do you see this as more of a dem v. rep. thing or an honest disagreement of policy? In that realm, is it business interest v. consumer? global warming v. those that don't believe in it? (although I would say you should be a good steward regardless of if you believe in it or not). There are quite a few sides to take on this.

I didn't put this in the political forum because it does stand to impact business in many ways. And while OK doesn't mine for coal, it does drill for gas. This could be a boon for our gas sector. So for OK, would it be a null gain/loss? Would the increase in gas sales cover the cost created by scrubbing the coal plants (or my preference replacing them)?

And we'll be honest and clear, we're all talking out of our rear-ends because none of us are experts enough in any of this to say we "know" (heck the real experts can't even agree). But I thought it might be an interesting topic. I'm just severely disappointed to see Scott Pruitt say what he did. Since the state refused to participate in the exchange for merely political issues, I really really hope this isn't the same story....that rep v dem issue. It's an old dead horse and I'm quite tired of it (and mary falin).

[ylouder]

Oklahoma does mine for coal. Tulsa(don't think they do anymore) and mcalester is still a producer.

With that said a lot other alternatives out there for power generation that are a lot cleaner.

[onthestrip]

Oklahoma does mine for coal. Tulsa(don't think they do anymore) and mcalester is still a producer.

With that said a lot other alternatives out there for power generation that are a lot cleaner.

There is coal mining in Oklahoma still but I dont believe out power plants burn Oklahoma coal. I believe they use more coal from Wyoming due to I think the sulfur content. Might be wrong though.

We could just spend a good amount of money up front and build a nuclear plant. It would last for a really long time, no green house gasses and is really cheap and reliable once built.

[Jersey Boss]

There is coal mining in Oklahoma still but I dont believe out power plants burn Oklahoma coal. I believe they use more coal from Wyoming due to I think the sulfur content. Might be wrong though.

We could just spend a good amount of money up front and build a nuclear plant. It would last for a really long time, no green house gasses and is really cheap and reliable once built.

What are you going to do with the waste? What private insurance company will insure it? Who pays the upfront cost on construction?

[Servicetech571]

Things aren't 100% rosey in the world of the co-op either.
How much of the energy that comes from a co-op is generated by them vs. bought from other sources?
Co-ops FORCE programs such as TOU rate plans while OG&E offers them as an option.

Compare rate sheets for a large Oklahoma Co-op vs. OG&E:
Electric Rates | Oklahoma Electric Cooperative
Rate Info

From the Co-op rate sheet
For bills mailed July through September (Summer):
Service Availability Charge: $0.60 per day (about the same as OGE)
Energy Charge:
On Peak: $0.256688 per kWh (Compared to 19 cents for OGE)
Off Peak: $0.102688 per kWh (Compared to 5 cents for OGE)
On Peak are the hours between 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (compared to 2-7 for OGE) between June 1 and August 31 (Compared to June 1 - Sept 30 for OGE), excluding the 4th of July.

Spring/Winter/Fall is close to OGE in rates.

[RadicalModerate]

The EPA is a joke. No matter how one looks at it, from either side of "the aisle".
I think most of the people at the top of that idiot nest ingested too much lead paint when they were kids.
That is the only explanation I can think of to account for their inability to not see the forest for the trees and to get so wrapped up in majoring in the minors that nothing ever actually gets done in the direction of environmental improvement.

[Jim Kyle]

Well, now that they've gotten the courts to declare that CO2 is an atmospheric pollutant, perhaps we can force them to take out permits before exhaling...

[Jersey Boss]

Thanks Sid. I appreciate you filling in the information.

[Jim Kyle]

Actually, Sid, I knew that -- but I couldn't pass up a chance to make a snarky comment about the EPA...

[bombermwc]

And lets also keep in mind that this is a 30% reduction from 2005 levels. We're already halfway to that because of various factors. I just really wish we could get a push for RENEWABLES and not just gas. The technology in wind and solar just isn't really going anywhere...we need something to revolutionize the industry. Or just throw in some cold fusion in there..lol. But seriously, what I will say about the EPA here is that it seems the only way the U.S. is going to live up to it's agreed upon levels, is if it doesn't require Congress to approve it (too many special interests involved to do the right thing). Whether you are from either side of the aisle on any of the issues (political/economic/scientific), I would say we should do what we can to keep the planet clean. Sort of like leaving the campsite at least as clean as when you got there.

We could make MAJOR change happen on a global scale if we could get battery technology out of the dark ages.

Where's that Star Trek crystal power when you need it?

[SoonerDave]

The EPA is a joke. No matter how one looks at it, from either side of "the aisle".
I think most of the people at the top of that idiot nest ingested too much lead paint when they were kids.
That is the only explanation I can think of to account for their inability to not see the forest for the trees and to get so wrapped up in majoring in the minors that nothing ever actually gets done in the direction of environmental improvement.

But Rad, the reality is that the EPA is anything but an environmental advocacy entity. Watching them over the last 40 years or so, they never have been. They're a political enforcement arm, and in my book, they're 1000x more frightening to the rights of the individual than the IRS. And the IRS can only ruin you financially if they're so persuaded. Read an article/profile about one of the higher-ups in the EPA a few years ago, and it was scary - this was a politically neutral piece (and I wish I could recall what publication it was in, but I can't) - but the essence of the piece was to reshape American culture in his own image, and essentially make lentil soup the meal du jour of the people because "it was all people really need."

Obama made it fairly plain years ago he was going to set out to destroy the coal industry at all costs. I'll give this much to him - he's holding fast to this promise, which is merely another step in kicking the economy (about which I firmly believe he cares not in the slightest given his personal political/economic predispositions) in the groin.

[SoonerDave]

Good studies linked here and definitions which should help you understand why you're misrepresenting the scientific meaning of 'pollutant'. Much like people do with the word 'theory' in the Scientific Method.

Is CO2 a pollutant?

tl;dr version: Pollutants are pollutants when they are released in unnatural ways. You breathing isn't polluting. A power plant releasing tens of millions of tons of CO2 is. Power plants account for about 25% of all CO2 emissions - the unnatural kind. Source: Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Power Plants Rated Worldwide -- ScienceDaily

And the inherent "unnatural" characterization of this kind of release necessarily implies the inability of nature to compensate for it, thus it is bad, thus it must be stopped, and so on. At least the class warfare rhetoric under the guise of "science" is consistent.

[zookeeper]

And the inherent "unnatural" characterization of this kind of release necessarily implies the inability of nature to compensate for it, thus it is bad, thus it must be stopped, and so on. At least the class warfare rhetoric under the guise of "science" is consistent.

I'll bite. In the 4+ BILLION YEARS of the planet Earth, it is only within the past 250 years that mankind has been industrialized to the point of having the ability to emit huge amounts of CO2 and other pollutants into our ecosystem. Nature doesn't compensate in 250 years for the havoc we have wrecked on our planet. We are creating our own extinction which we never had the ability to do so before. Our stewardship requires intervention and the responsibility to stand up to those seeking more profits (and denial as to what's happening in the short-term) at the expense of a livable planet in a very short number of years.

[bombermwc]

I'm going to echo some of what zookeeper said, but i'll expand it a bit. Whether you believe that mankind has affected climate change or not, isn't it better to be a responsible civilization and reduce emissions? Look at China. On what planet should it be considered OK to have pollution like that? China is heavy in coal power, and it's a huge contributor to that pollution. It's magnified by the high level of urban/dense population base. But we only need to look at places like LA to see how it can be bad in the U.S. as well. Even in OKC we had air alert days. Regardless of where the pollutants comes from, they're still there.

To SoonerDave's economic points, don't you think the extra health costs associated with things like that far exceed the immediate hit by reducing coal use? The health costs are FAR more long-term and far-reaching. Yes the coal industry is going to suffer. Yes your energy bill will go up a bit. But you (and the economy) will be SAVING many times over on the long-term health costs associated with higher pollution levels. California is a living example of how this can help. Things were pretty downright bad there in the 90s. The air there has cleaned up quite a bit because the state regulated it so much. The power issues in the past were caused by corrupt politicians and energy companies attempting to jack up prices....it was proven in court and they're in jail now. So the very people you're protecting, have been shown to be out to screw you over from every angle just to up their profits. I have no love for any utility company. I don't have any special love for mining either. If you want to support a capitalist economy, then those places that are affected by a reduction in coal will survive by finding other industries....or they won't. It would be survival of the fittest. But I'm not going to support coal just because it supports jobs....same story for tobacco. People can be re-trained for other jobs (although they may have to move for it and that town may not survive). But the overall economy, no I don't buy the argument that we're doomed because we have a progressive environmentalist here. I often wonder what sort of inroads we could have made if Gore hadn't lost the '00 election.