Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search


Energy Voices: Insights on the future of fuel and power

Is the EPA an impediment to economic recovery?

The Environmental Protection Agency needs to analyze and understand the full, cumulative economic impacts of its regulations, Tracey writes, and not seemingly choose sides when it comes to energy production.

By Evan TraceyAmerican Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE) / March 11, 2013

The coal-fired Plant Scherer is shown operating in Juliette, Ga. The best approach to regulations is a more balanced path that recognizes America’s continued need for coal, and the importance of clean coal technology, Tracey writes.

Gene Blythe/AP/File

Enlarge

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, comes from a recent blog post by Hannah Fjeldsted at the Heritage Foundation.

Skip to next paragraph

Senior Vice President for Communications, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE)

Mr. Tracey oversees the strategy on how to communicate the importance of electricity from coal and the value of investments in clean coal technology. He has two decades of political, legislative and issue research experience and has provided strategic media analysis for a number of trade associations, foundations, Fortune 500 companies, political party committees, the national press, academic institutions, as well as hundreds of national, statewide and local political campaigns.

Recent posts

In her post, The EPA: an Impediment to Economic Recovery, she states, “The rapid pace and severity of EPA regulations on the energy sector during the past four years illustrates an ongoing problem—the government’s impediment to an economic recovery.”

She goes on to say:

“The EPA’s mandates have unfairly discriminated against certain sectors of the energy industry, most notably coal, pointlessly killing desperately needed jobs. On top of the regulations that have questionable benefits at best, the EPA has withheld permits for coal mining that were already approved by other agencies, gratuitously delayed permits, and even rescinded previously issued permits. There are real consequences to actions like this.”

In fact, earlier this week U.S. Representative Ed Whitfield of Kentucky said, “The EPA, without question, has established an unfortunate trend line, methodically establishing a regulatory framework to eliminate coal, and taking away diversity choices from utilities throughout the country.” 

As we’ve stated, we hope for a more constructive working relationship with the next EPA administrator. We will continue to emphasize that the best approach is a more balanced path that recognizes America’s continued need for coal, and the importance of clean coal technology.

The EPA needs to analyze and understand the full, cumulative economic impacts of its regulations, and not seemingly choose sides when it comes to energy production.  American jobs are at stake, as well as access to affordable, reliable electricity that is essential to our economic recovery.

The Monitor allows its sponsoring partners to connect directly with Monitor readers by including content on CSMonitor.com. Sponsored content is always clearly labeled—and is written, edited, and produced by the sponsor. Questions? E-mail us.

  • Weekly review of global news and ideas
  • Balanced, insightful and trustworthy
  • Subscribe in print or digital

Special Offer

 

Doing Good

 

What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change...

Danny Bent poses at the starting line of the Boston Marathon in Hopkinton, Mass.

After the Boston Marathon bombings, Danny Bent took on a cross-country challenge

The athlete-adventurer co-founded a relay run called One Run for Boston that started in Los Angeles and ended at the marathon finish line to raise funds for victims.

 
 
Become a fan! Follow us! Google+ YouTube See our feeds!