Who Will New EPA Rules Hit the Hardest?

The Environmental Protection Agency this week made public its draft mandating power plants cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions 30% by 2030 from levels of 25 years earlier. If the new limits are accepted, Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM  ) , Cemex SAB de CV (NYSE: CX  ) , Eastman Chemical Company (NYSE: EMN  ) , and US Steel Corporation (NYSE: X  ) will be hard hit financially, as each is among the top 10 consumers of coal generated electricity.

Source: Annual Coal Report 2012, U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA)

What the new rules would mean
According to The Wall Street Journal, "Each state will have different reduction standards," but across the United States, carbon emissions from electric power plants would be 25% their 2005 levels by 2020 and 30% their 2005 levels by 2030, but individual states will be affected differently.

For example, the proposed rule would require West Virginia power plants to reduce their carbon emissions 19.7% from 2005 levels by 2020, while power plants in Colorado and Louisiana reduced their carbon output 35.3% and 39.7%, respectively.

Why the president is acting
On the eve of the EPA's draft rule announcement, The New York Times reported, "The regulation takes aim at the largest source of carbon pollution in the United States, the nation's more than 600 coal-fired power plants."

Just how bad is coal for the environment
The below pie chart comparison demonstrates how environmentally caustic coal is when compared to alternative energies, natural gas, or oil.

Source: Environmental effects from using coal, U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA)


Industry is already saying it will not stand for this
The Edison Electric Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the US Chamber of Commerce have already told the government to expect a legal fight. The Edison Electric Institute is an association of electric power producers. The National Association of Manufacturers and the US Chamber are heavy industry associations, representing the likes of Archer Daniels Midland, Eastman Chemical Company, and US Steel Corporation. (Cemex SAB de CV is a foreign based corporation in Mexico.)

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has promised to introduce legislation to block the EPA's new rule, but with the Senate controlled by Democrats, passage of any such legislation would be unlikely.

The fight may be decided in the courts
The tempest in the coal mine is already boiling over. Coal companies are marshaling  phalanxes of attorneys, prepping lawsuits, hoping to block the new EPA rule. The action is seen by many as the president acting unilaterally to do what Congress wouldn't when it failed to pass his cap on carbon emissions.

Do you know this energy tax "loophole"?
You already know record oil and natural production is changing the lives of millions of Americans. But what you probably haven’t heard is that the IRS is encouraging investors to support our growing energy renaissance, offering you a tax loophole to invest in some of America’s greatest energy companies. Take advantage of this profitable opportunity by grabbing your brand-new special report, “The IRS Is Daring You to Make This Investment Now!,” and you'll learn about the simple strategy to take advantage of a little-known IRS rule. Don't miss out on advice that could help you cut taxes for decades to come. Click here to learn more.

 


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On June 04, 2014, at 9:35 AM, anindakumars wrote:

    It is grossly erroneous and simplistic to equate environmental impact and level of carbon dioxide. If anything, the worst source of power generates no carbon di-oxide. It is nuclear. The spent fuels are simply impossible to store without radiation seeping out into the earth (covered in a detail series by WSJ last year) and all places which handle radioactive materials show traces of higher than permitted radiation levels even decades after decommissioning. The current EPA rulings focus heavily on carbon dioxide as opposed to taking a more holistic view. So in conclusion - solar is better than coal but not nuclear and not necessarily oil either.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2981924, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 11/25/2014 5:15:03 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement