Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama's plan means Utah's energy bills will rise’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, June 4 2014 1:54 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
GaryO
Virginia Beach, VA

'Obama's plan means Utah's energy bills will rise’

Uh huh . . . because as we all know, energy prices would never rise otherwise.

They've never risen before, have they?

They've been going down since the beginning of time . . . But now that Obama has come up with another dumb plan, they're going to go up for the first time in the history of the world.

If Romney were President, energy bills would NEVER go up.

Pardon-me-twice
Tooele, UT

Everyone's talking about our coal burning plants, why do all the elected forget to mention China's pollution reaching our western states.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

If one president can with his pen write a directive to tell the EPA to make rules against coal power plants. What is to prevent another president from taking up his pen to write a directive to the EPA telling them to write a different set of rules or to scrap those rules altogether?

Personally I don't believe that President Obama is really worried about global warming, I suspect there is an other addenda. A president doesn't take a record number of vacations in his 747 if he is really worried about global warming. A president worries about global warming doesn't send his family to Hawaii in a 747 just for them, and the next fly there himself the next day.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

So coal-powered electricity rates will rise, so what? I would argue that the utility customers Mr. Evenson cites paying less than a dime per kilowatt-hour in the coal belt are paying below market rates due to externalized costs. The consumers pay for the internalized costs of electrical consumption (fuel, generation, transmission, overhead) but do not pay the true full costs of their consumption, which include the effects of air pollution that are shouldered by the larger community. This amounts to a subsidy that sends distorted price signals to the market. Adding emissions controls to coal-fired plants acts to internalize the externalities, that is, to remove the hidden subsidy and make the price of the commodity more accurately reflect its true cost so consumers can make rational economic choices and the free market can function properly. Why do so many free market conservatives have such a hard time grasping this?

Granted, increased costs for a commodity can cause pain in the short term while people and the market adjust. This can be ameliorated through policies. If coal can't compete in the free market when its true full costs are included in the price, then so be it.

marxist
Salt Lake City, UT

We have a big problem with economics, that is, with the science of economics. That discipline has not developed the right tools to deal with benefits, i.e. saving the world as a fit place for human habitation, which are in the distance future as against heavy upfront costs to achieve those benefits. Yes, we have a variety of financial formulas, but they just don't give us a handle on the problem. Because economists can't figure this out, the rest of society flails about looking at pieces of the problem without bringing the entire issue into focus.

Economists must develop the tools. They aren't doing it.

Curt Conklin
Provo, UT

Hey Jay, what is more important . . . a rise of a few cents per kWh in your electricity bill, or clean air? Huh? 9.98 cents a kWh? In Meblourne Australia, greatest city in the world to live in, according to Forbes and the Economist, they pay up to 39 cents a kWh.

RP888
Layton, UT

"The nature and pace of observed climate changes—and an emerging scientific
consensus on their projected consequences—pose severe risks for our national
security. During our decades of experience in the U.S. military, we have addressed
many national security challenges, from containment and deterrence of the Soviet
nuclear threat during the Cold War to political extremism and transnational terrorism
in recent years. The national security risks of projected climate change are as serious
as any challenges we have faced."

CNA Military Advisory Board

airnaut
Everett, 00

Tea-Publicans cry about ONE failed Corporation and the executives who took the money and ran with Solyndra costing taxpayers $200 million.

While completely ignoring the $25 BILLION - that's with a captiol letter "B" - that the same Governmnet gives to Oil corporations each and every year! -- that's 25 times more each and every year for dirty air and dirty technolgy -- without a peep from the whiners on the right.

BTW --
Petroleum Oil was more expensive in the beginning than Whale blubber was at the time.

Good thing the Progressives 100+ years ago ignored the Whaling Industy and Whale oil salesmen...

Spangs
Salt Lake City, UT

Somebody asked if the liberals were happy. Well, as somebody who would have been considered a conservative Republican in the 1980's (now I would be called a RINO or a socialist/moderate or a traitor), I am also happy about what the President did. We need to work on the big problems of the age. Climate change is THE big problem. Right now, Congress complains and does nothing. Nobody but the President has done anything about, well, anything in the past 6 years. If Congress would re-engage in governance, maybe the Republican party could again make impactful contributions to our way of life.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

Liberals, are you happy now?
Yup. Cheapest isn't always the lowest cost. Not in this case.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments