Over the coming decades, the cost to stakeholders of the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scheme will amount to nearly $250 billion, a CAE analysis found. Meanwhile, the average annual cost to stakeholders of building enough infrastructure to stave off these blackouts is far greater than the average annual benefits the EPA scheme will bring to the entire country by the year 2055.
"This is the regulatory equivalent of studying the structural integrity of the top floor of a 100-story building without doing so for the preceding 99 floors," commented Isaac Orr, a policy fellow at CAE and co-author of the CAE's comments on the matter.
(Related: Check out our earlier coverage on how the United Nations is really ramping up its global warming push, calling on globalist politicians everywhere to step up and become "ringmasters" in forcing the green agenda on their populations.)
As with most climate-related issues, the EPA plan centers around the idea that carbon dioxide (CO2) "emissions" must be reduced by a massive amount, including from power plants, otherwise the planet will become too "warm" and "melt" into a puddle of nothing.
The EPA under fake president Joe Biden wants to heavily restrict the amount of CO2 that United States power plants are allowed to emit. Doing this, though, will greatly reduce the amount of electricity available to consumers, which, when combined with gradually increasing demand for electric vehicles (EVs), is a recipe for a grid disaster.
"The EPA's proposed regulations would require fossil fuel-fired power plants to adopt developing technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and hydrogen blending, in order to significantly bring down their greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades," one media outlet reported.
"CAE filed comments this week in response to the EPA's proposals, highlighting in its analysis that the EPA has overestimated the efficacy of wind and solar while exposing the 45 million people living in the area served by the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO) power grid to elevated blackout risks."
Also in its commentary, the CAE added that the EPA "does not appear to have the expertise necessary to enact such a sweeping regulation on the American power sector."
Across the 15 states its serves, MISO, according to the CAE analysis, would almost certainly not have enough electricity to keep them all lit up in accordance with demand, should the EPA plan be fully implemented. As a result, millions of Americans will likely end up in the dark as rolling blackouts become the norm.
In order to bolster its energy production capacity to overcome the new challenges that would come with the new EPA rule, MISO would need to invest another $246 billion by the year 2055, a simply ludicrous and unrealistic figure.
This breaks down to about $7.7 billion that MISO would need to spend every year until then in order to accomplish what the EPA is demanding. $7.7 billion is greater than the projected $5.9 billion in annual benefits to the country under its proposed CO2 caps.
"EPA is required to justify any proposed regulations from a scientific and economic standpoint in a document called a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)," Orr added in a statement. "Unfortunately, EPA used misleading assumptions in its analysis to justify the rules that don’t accurately reflect their impact on the reliability of the grid or their cost."
Fact check: there is no such thing as man-made climate change, unless you count geoengineering and weather manipulation. Learn more at Climate.news.
Sources for this article include: