Solar power costs twice as much as natural gas and mandating its use will kill jobs, but the Environmental Protection Agency wants to force it on Americans anyway, according to Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former chief economist for the Department of Labor.

President Obama is expected to announce new "cap-and-trade" environmental regulations on June 2, having decided to bypass Congress and go the regulatory route since he was unable to persuade the House and Senate to pass "cap-and-trade" legislation.

"But these steps without legislation will reduce opportunities for the poorest Americans. Those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend 24 percent of their income on energy, compared with 4 percent for those in the top fifth," she wrote in a column for Real Clear Markets.

Editor's Note: Obama ‘Blunder’ Spawns Massive Profit Opportunity

The mandated cuts in carbon emissions will raise the cost of energy, particularly electricity, and hit the poor hardest, according to Furchtgott-Roth.

Under the expected regulations, every state would have to meet its required target by ensuring plants reduce emissions or by financing reductions in other ways, such as investing in more costly renewable energy including wind and solar power.

"These impose real costs on the economy, such as fewer factories, trips, and jobs. Electricity made from solar power costs twice as much as electricity made from natural gas," Furchtgott-Roth explained.

"Everyone wants cleaner air, but most people also want the security of employment that comes from industrial activity."

She cited a 2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate on proposed regulations to slash greenhouse emissions that concluded "job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemployment rate."

The battle over Obama's plan may be fought by advocates and opponents over money, Bloomberg reported.

"For Obama, the risk is the plan gets labeled a job-killer just as campaigns heat up for an election that could determine control of the U.S. Senate," Bloomberg said.

Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council say the EPA's promise to give states wide leeway will limit the costs, and ultimately result in lower electric bills for consumers as utilities become more efficient, according to Bloomberg.

However, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a study concluding the new carbon emission rules could shutter more than a third of the nation's coal-fired power capacity by 2030, causing economic losses of $50 billion a year and the loss of 224,000 jobs, USA Today reported. 

Alert: Obama’s Budget Takes Aim at Retired Americans

Related Stories:

• Business Leader: Obama's Move Against Coal Hurts US Energy Advantage
• States Move to Blunt Obama Carbon-Emissions Plan