Seeking Alpha

Coal stocks fall as EPA releases plans to curb emissions

  • No one should be surprised by the EPA's proposals for tough requirements on new coal plants - they had been anticipated for at least a year - but coal stocks are down across the board: ANR -4.6%, ACI -4.2%, WLT -4%, BTU -3.2%, CLD -2.6%, JRCC -1.4%, CNX -1.1%, RNO -0.6%.
  • New coal plants are required to limit their emissions to 1,100 lbs. of CO2 per mw hour, ~700 fewer lbs. than most modern-day coal units; the only way to meet the standard is to use new carbon capture and storage technology that isn't currently used at any commercial-scale plant.
  • The legal fight ahead will hinge largely on the EPA's ability to show that the technology is a viable option; the Clean Air Act requires the agency to show its standards are "achievable" and that required technology has been "adequately demonstrated."
  • ETF: KOL.
Comments (25)
  • SoldHigh
    , contributor
    Comments (1000) | Send Message
     
    The people NEED to hold the egregious, over-grown EPA accountable for its job-killing and economically-damaging actions!
    20 Sep 2013, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • nemonemo
    , contributor
    Comments (309) | Send Message
     
    Another disaster on American people by Monster in Chief.
    20 Sep 2013, 01:59 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5145) | Send Message
     
    Clean Air Act is a joke.
    Weather in WNY generally blows in from Canada so unless the US Clean Air Act accounts for Canandian air, I'm sunk.

     

    How will the all-powerful EPA help those of us who are subjected to foreign winds?
    20 Sep 2013, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • Grg_gnll
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Be looking for ADA-ES inc and FTEK to be winners here.
    20 Sep 2013, 12:50 PM Reply Like
  • tibialexpert
    , contributor
    Comments (45) | Send Message
     
    lots of BS
    20 Sep 2013, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • maudie
    , contributor
    Comments (468) | Send Message
     
    He's got a cute smile, though!
    20 Sep 2013, 05:37 PM Reply Like
  • vireoman
    , contributor
    Comments (865) | Send Message
     
    The next thing you know those meddlesome bureaucrats will be outlawing asbestos, cyanide leaching into watersheds, and lead paint!
    20 Sep 2013, 11:12 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3351) | Send Message
     
    vireoman, do you exhale asbestos, cyanide, and lead? I suggest it's more likely you exhale warm CO2, and from appearances quite a lot of it.
    21 Sep 2013, 01:55 AM Reply Like
  • sethmcs
    , contributor
    Comments (3080) | Send Message
     
    Got lead paint in my house. Built in 1889. Since I do not eat paint chips it does not pose any danger. Got lead pipes and lead solder on the copper pipes as well. Might even have some asbestos somewhere around the chimney. Funny I have bigger worries than these. Too bad the government doesn't have better things to worry about.
    21 Sep 2013, 02:01 AM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    The science behind man made global warming is far from proven. There has been no evidence of warming since 1998. The UN group following it has even admitted to it. The arctic ice and glaciers have been growing even though Al Gore and every "scientist" told us it would be gone. While I agree with the EPA's mission, they have turned from a agency meant to protect the people and earth and into a political agency that pursues the left wing agenda. So I guess you are happy they are a government agency that follows your beliefs. Im sure you are happy the IRS is targeting Republicans.
    21 Sep 2013, 02:47 AM Reply Like
  • The Long Tail of Finance
    , contributor
    Comments (695) | Send Message
     
    Think the problem with you "unbelievers" is that it's not a matter of what the evidence shows or suggests. It's that you've already made up your minds not to believe it in the first place. Yes, it's not proven that global warming is man-made, but does something need to be proven before one can start to think about it and take action? What does it mean to be "proven" anyway? What would convince you. Oh I forgot, you've already made up your minds.

     

    Like all things, time will tell, but human race has a special knack for not doing anything until it's too late. Let's talk again about this topic in 2050, if any of you are still around. Should be even more interesting by then and maybe we'll have our proof, one way or the other.
    21 Sep 2013, 07:35 AM Reply Like
  • The Geoffster
    , contributor
    Comments (4009) | Send Message
     
    Does that go for the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus as well?
    21 Sep 2013, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • bungaylad
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
     
    What are the source of your facts? How is it over 400 ships are slated to make the Northern passage and the Koreans and Russians are negotiating about regular transit runs from Asia to Rotterdam. The sea ice and Glaciers continue to disappear at an alarming rate.
    21 Sep 2013, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3351) | Send Message
     
    bungaylad,
    Go ahead. Pull the other leg.

     

    http://bit.ly/19shrL6
    21 Sep 2013, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (529) | Send Message
     
    I doubt he will read that.. Any evidence that points to global warming not happening will get completely ignored. As for my own beliefs, once a topic becomes political you can no longer believe what people say. Global warming is a highly political topic and any "evidence" must be taken lightly. Remember the drowning polar bears? Do you know where that came from? Some scientists in a plane saw some dead polar bears in the water and concluded that they drown. No autopsy was ever done. No attempt to view the bodies up close was attempted. But the global warming crowd took it as fact. That scientist worked for the US government and was investigated for scientific misconduct. No retraction was ever done. I need to see real evidence that has had ALL DATA peer reviewed. Why do I capitalize all data? Because when you make a scientific claim, you show everyone all your data and let them come to their own conclusion. The global warming scientists hide their data and release filtered results. Leaked e-mails between UN scientists shows attempt to hide data and even ways to avoid freedom of information act requests. If you don;t believe anything I have said here, feel free to google it yourself.
    21 Sep 2013, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • StuartKats
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Disclosure - i am long long dated calls on WLT. My thesis is based on their met coal not therm.

     

    This talk that somehow it's not the govt's job to regulate how much pollution coal plants spew into the air is insane. One needs only look at pictures of the air quality in China to come to the conclusion that unregulated coal plants are BAD. Really, anything other conclusion lacks common sense. Has anyone been to Bejing when there is an air quality advisory? It's sickening. So let's stop this govt bashing about it's not their job - IT IS ! as it is with asbestos, lead paint, cyanide, and anti dumping laws into out clean water. This sht is bad, it causes death in the worst possible way. Come on people common sense.

     

    As for global warming...where do i start. Presumably all of you have home insurance - well my premiums have gone up 50% in the last year due to want my insurance company labels "adverse claims due to climate change". The free and capitalist market is starting to speak AND put a price on CLIMATE CHANGE.

     

    ...and let say all you who deny climate change are wrong - what then?
    21 Sep 2013, 10:34 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3351) | Send Message
     
    Stuart you're pulling the bs of bait and switch. First you talk of CO2 and the AGW fraud, and now you switch to pollution in China. There's pollution and there's CO2. Pollution from coal plants in the US has been regulated for a very long time. China could do the same. Claiming the CO2 you exhale is a "pollutant" is a recent farce driven by the political desire to create new revenue streams for governments.

     

    Use some comment sense.
    22 Sep 2013, 07:46 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3351) | Send Message
     
    "...and let say all you who deny climate change are wrong - what then?"

     

    LOL! So Stuart, if man didn't exist the climate wouldn't change? You're clearly one of the sheeple that have bought into this because you don't understand the basics of the hypothesis. The climate isn't static - never has been and never will be. Proving that it changes doesn't prove that man has caused the change.
    22 Sep 2013, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5145) | Send Message
     
    How did humans survive before the EPA?

     

    10,000 BC maked the end of the last Ice Age. The climate warmed and glacial ice shields retreated. Beringia was covered by the Bering Strait. No coal burning was involved, unless the Paleo-Indians just didn't leave any signs of coal-fired power plants. Maybe it was all of the wood being burned by those who migrated to North America that caused "climate change?"

     

    Climate change? Really? Or, perhaps, just the Earth doing what it has done for millions of years?
    21 Sep 2013, 10:45 AM Reply Like
  • StuartKats
    , contributor
    Comments (40) | Send Message
     
    Deercreekvols - great point but you forget to mention one important point re: the retreat of the glaciers - it happened over thousands of years. The recent "warming", glacial retreat, once in a 1000 yr storm/flood/weather pattern is a recent phenomena i.e within the last few decades. Ask anyone who derives their livelihood from the land or their sustainence from the land. Also, thousand of PEER reviewed (meaning you can just making something up based on poor science and publish) scientific studies point to the fact that we as a species are having very deterimential impact on mother nature.

     

    But this is all beside the point - would you want to live and raise your children within "spitting" distance of a coal plant that doesnt comply with the latest standards?

     

    I dunno but when the govt has to publish when it's safe to go outside - i think that is bad

     

    http://bit.ly/18MlMYB

     

    again what if you're wrong? if you're right then everything is hunky-dory and we keep on doing what we are doing. But what if the wacko tree huggers are right ?
    21 Sep 2013, 04:43 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5145) | Send Message
     
    Report due out Sept. 27th kind of clears up the debate, so it seems.

     

    http://fxn.ws/1f8IPpU

     

    (I am hoping that folks do not point to the fact Fox News reported this and attack them instead of reading the article. MSM is clearly not going to report this after years of playing town crier and sounding the Global Warming alarm)
    22 Sep 2013, 07:29 PM Reply Like
  • deercreekvols
    , contributor
    Comments (5145) | Send Message
     
    Scientists get things wrong. It happens all the time.
    21 Sep 2013, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3351) | Send Message
     
    deercreek,
    It's worse than that. The peer review process was completely corrupted within the "climate science" community. That was one of the findings coming out of Climategate - the extent to which the rather small climate science community was cliquish and that the peer review process was a joke.

     

    @Stuart - no scientist would state that AGW is fact. At best it's a hypothesis. Moreover, some of it, such as Mann's fraudulent hockey stick hypothesis, have been disproved.
    21 Sep 2013, 08:06 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11015) | Send Message
     
    China will be happy to buy all our coal as well as our LNG and CNG natural gas. Coal will be burnt elsewhere if not here adding to global CO2. Without a global agreement our efforts are mere tokenism.

     

    As for LNG and CNG, China will lower their CO2 emissions from cars more than our reformulated gas and at a discount to gas prices while we pay more. By buying it from the US which is captured by lobbyists trying to create mini oligopolies of special reformulated gas to bilk consumers and sell farm production at elevated prices not only does China help solve their auto emission issues and get greater efficiencies than gas but also don't gunk up and destroy their car engines or add strange stuff to gas that contaminates the ground even more than regular gas (see California's contaminated gas mix).

     

    The EPA is not just making a mockery of the free market system and swindling the public, but it is also making a joke out of science and logic.
    21 Sep 2013, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • futr
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Global warming is a lie.
    21 Sep 2013, 11:27 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|