I was remiss yesterday in not posting my weekly television segment with Chris Berg from Monday. Not surprisingly, given the news which broke that day, we talked about the EPA’s proposed regulations for existing power plants.
I’ve written a lot about the issue. Like how North Dakota’s air is some of the cleanest in the nation despite the presence of several large coal-fired power plants and a lot of natural gas flaring. And how attacking existing coal-fired power plants is a good way to destabilize our national power grid, particularly here in the Midwest where coal is still the largest part of the mix.
Yesterday I ran across this interesting graphic from the Wall Street Journal (via Million Dollar Way) which shows a state-by-state breakdown of what the EPA’s regulations would require in terms of carbon reductions.
As you can see, coal-rich states like North Dakota, Kentucky and West Virginia need the least amount of reduction according to the Obama administration. The state needing the most carbon reduction? Uh, Washington, which has some of the lowest electricity rates in the nation due to a lot of hydroelectric power.
It’s hard to look at that map, and consider the social and economic implications of the aggressive mandate it represents, and imagine that these new regulations are going to stand.