iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA Power Plant Pollution Rules To Move Forward

First Posted: 03/26/2012 9:23 pm Updated: 03/27/2012 3:58 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration forged ahead on Tuesday with the first-ever limits on heat-trapping pollution from new power plants, ignoring protests from industry and Republicans who have said the regulation will raise electricity prices and kill off coal, the dominant U.S. energy source.

But the proposal also fell short of environmentalists' hopes because it goes easier than it could have on coal-fired power, one of the largest sources of the gases blamed for global warming.

"The standard will check the previously uncontrolled amount (of carbon pollution) that power plants ... release into our atmosphere," Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday. But "it also creates a path forward for future facilities to use technology that burns coal, while releasing less carbon pollution."

Older coal-fired power plants have already been shutting down across the country, thanks to low natural gas prices, demand from China driving up coal's price and weaker demand for electricity.

Regulations from the EPA to control pollution blowing downwind and toxic emissions from power plants have also helped push some into retirement, causing Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail to claim the agency will cause blackouts. Numerous studies and an AP survey of power plant operators have shown that is not the case.

But on Tuesday, GOP leaders once again accused the administration of clamping down on cheap, home-grown sources of energy and said the regulation raised questions about the sincerity of President Barack Obama's pledge for an "all-of-the-above" energy policy.

"This rule is part of the Obama administration's aggressive plan to change America's energy portfolio and eliminate coal as a source of affordable, reliable electricity generation," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., who as chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has led the charge against environmental regulations. "EPA continues to overstep its authority and ram through a series of overreaching regulations in it attacks on America's power sector."

The rule announced Tuesday could either derail or jump-start plans for 15 new coal-fired power plants in 10 states, depending on when they start construction. Those that break ground in the next year would be exempt from the new limit. Those that start construction later will have to eventually comply with the rule.

Existing power plants, even if they make changes that increase emissions, would not be covered at all. And new ones would have years to meet the standard and could average their emissions over three decades in order to meet the threshold.

But eventually, all coal-fired power plants would need to install equipment to capture half of their carbon pollution. While not commercially available now, the EPA projects that by 2030, no new coal-fired power plant will be built without carbon capture and storage.

By contrast, a new natural gas-fired power plant would meet the new standard without installing additional controls.

"There are areas where they could have made it a lot worse," said Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a coalition of power companies. Still, "the numerical limit allows progress for natural gas and places compliance out of reach for coal-fired plants" not planning to capture and sequester carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas.

Steve Miller, CEO and President of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a group of coal-burning electricity producers, took a more dismal view of the proposal.

"The latest rule will make it impossible to build any new coal-fueled power plants and could cause the premature closure of many more coal-fueled power plants operating today," Miller said.

The regulation, which was due to be released last July but has been stuck at the White House since November, stemmed from a settlement with environmental groups and states. The government already controls global warming pollution at the largest industrial sources, has adopted the first-ever standards for new cars and trucks and is working on regulations to reduce greenhouse gases at refineries.

But EPA chief Jackson said Tuesday the agency has no plans to pursue regulations for existing power plants.

Some states, including Washington, Oregon and California, already limit greenhouse gas pollution. And two other states, Montana and Illinois, require carbon capture and storage for all new coal-fired power plants.

Michael Brune, executive director of the Sierra Club, an advocacy group fighting coal-fired power, said in an interview that the regulation shows that President Barack Obama is moving to a cleaner energy future.

"It's a strong move," Brune said. "It means there will never be another coal plant built without new technology, and it probably means even those won't be built because they can't compete."

Other advocacy groups, however, said the regulation was imperfect, since it "grandfathers" in existing plants.

"EPA also must focus on the main source of power plant carbon emissions — existing coal-fired plants, many of them more than 50 years old, which are responsible for nearly 40 percent of U.S. carbon emissions," said Kevin Knobloch, the president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who said the regulation was a historic step to "trim" carbon emissions.

Even if the proposal did result in no new coal-fired power plants being built in the U.S., the coal would be exported and burned for electricity elsewhere, contributing to global warming. Export would also increase emissions because of the pollution from the transportation.

But Republicans said the new rule could not come at a worse time, with concern about high gasoline prices and energy taking center stage in the presidential election.

"At a time when the Obama administration should be working to lower the price of gas at the pump, it is alarming that they have put forward more global warming regulations," said Matt Dempsey, a spokesman for Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate environment panel, who pledged on Tuesday to introduce a resolution to overturn the rule. "Republicans are committed to ensuring that the Obama EPA is finally reined in."

The 10 states with proposed new coal-fired generation that could be covered by the regulation are Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Kentucky, Michigan, Georgia, Utah, Wyoming and Kansas.

___

Online: http://epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard/

___

Follow Dina Cappiello's environment coverage on Twitter (at)dinacappiello

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration forged ahead on Tuesday with the first-ever limits on heat-trapping pollution from new power plants, ignoring protests from industry and Republicans who ha...
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration forged ahead on Tuesday with the first-ever limits on heat-trapping pollution from new power plants, ignoring protests from industry and Republicans who ha...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 667
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
12:05 PM on 03/30/2012
Ambient Air Quality in the US has dramatically improved since President Nixon signed the Clean Air Act in 1970: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html. Not satisfied with this success, EPA is now going after CO2 emissions. In 2009, EPA issued an "endangerment finding,". In 205 pages, EPA references the UN-IPCC 396 times on 133 pages. There are 118 other references, but many of these are contributors to IPCC reports and groups such as National Research Council who simply re-published much of the IPCC info. The "endangerment finding" even has a version of the discredited Michael Mann Hockey Stick curve that dampens temperature data to a zero baseline the further back in time you go, making it seem like today’s temperatures are hotter than ever.
The last UN IPCC report had several errors, so the InterAcademy Council, a well respected global network of over 115 national science academies, investigated and found the “substantive findings” claimed by the IPCC were based on very little evidence and the report was largely “views” based on SPECULATION not backed by substantive research. http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/. Yet the IPCC reports are the major source of the US EPA’s “finding” that CO2 emissions are endangering our health and environment.
I believe this "finding" and related regulations will meet the same fate as Obama Care.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tootsie56
help fellow travelers along the way, it comes back
08:51 PM on 03/27/2012
As someone who has COPD problems caused from pollution, I welcome this.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
07:47 PM on 03/27/2012
Ah!!! Another example of "CHANGE" aka OBAMA thru placing restraints on the Coal Industry and Coal Utilities. Cap and Trade via the EPA. Meanwhile, India, Brazil, Russia, China, have no constraints on Coal pollution. These coal particles do find there way into the jet stream and world air currents to be eventually dumped on the United States. But what the heck, we are improving our idiotic carbon footprint for a theory already proven to be concocted by the Academics in order to get grant funding. We hire foreign experts and we outsource our best technology (i.e GE) even when the taxpayer owns part of the company (i.e.GE and GM)!!!!

If anyone actually told you this story 40 years ago they would laugh and not believe you. Today is is policy.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:20 PM on 03/27/2012
The reality is that coal power does not have to pay for its damages, and therefore steps like this are only steps towards coal power being priced accurately. This lets the market steer us towards power choices that make sense for the future.

Paul Krugman on externalities and market failures:

'It’s important to be clear about what this means. It does not necessarily say that we should end the use of coal-generated electricity. What it says, instead, is that consumers are paying much too low a price for coal-generated electricity, because the price they pay does not take account of the very large external costs associated with generation. If consumers did have to pay the full cost, they would use much less electricity from coal — maybe none, but that would depend on the alternatives.'

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/markets-can-be-very-very-wrong/

Krugman's referenced study, from its abstract:

'Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added. The largest industrial contributor to external costs is coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added.'

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

To sum up: coal power is MORE EXPENSIVE TO AMERICA WHEN INSUFFICIENTLY REGULATED.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:46 PM on 03/27/2012
Sorry for doubling up. It appeared that my first post got moderated, so I resubbed.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:13 PM on 03/27/2012
First, Krugman on the economics of coal power:

'Markets Can Be Very, Very Wrong'

'they find that the costs of air pollution are big, and heavily concentrated in a few industries. In fact, there are a number of industries that inflict more damage in the form of air pollution than the value-added by these industries at market prices.
.

What it says, instead, is that consumers are paying much too low a price for coal-generated electricity, because the price they pay does not take account of the very large external costs associated with generation. If consumers did have to pay the full cost, they would use much less electricity from coal — maybe none, but that would depend on the alternatives.'

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/markets-can-be-very-very-wrong/

From the abstract of Krugman's referenced study:

'Solid waste combustion, sewage treatment, stone quarrying, marinas, and oil and coal-fired power plants have air pollution damages larger than their value added. The largest industrial contributor to external costs is coal-fired electric generation, whose damages range from 0.8 to 5.6 times value added. (JEL E01, L94, Q53, Q56)'

http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.5.1649

What this says is that coal power is MORE EXPENSIVE WHEN UNREGULATED.
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
07:35 PM on 03/27/2012
Excellent! I've been very pleased with Paul Krugman's work on these issues over the years.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:36 PM on 03/27/2012
He is a very smart man and he is unafraid to call BS when he sees it. Would that we had more like him.
cdterm47
I am poor because I am a River to my People
07:49 PM on 03/27/2012
maslin]

What the analysis reveals is that Green Supporters worship voodoo mathematics to justify nonsense.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:51 PM on 03/27/2012
What your post reveals is that you are an ideologue possessed of talking points and ad hominems, but no real argument. Develop one, it's good for you.
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
02:22 PM on 03/27/2012
Whether you accept human caused climate change or not there are plenty of good reasons to move away from fossil fuels. These reasons include economic security and political security and the cost of health care. The impact of fossil fuels to the environment and human health are extensive and result in hidden costs that include 13,000 deaths/year just from particulates. Mercury from coal has contaminated much of the biosphere.

Alternatives like wind and solar are expensive and intermittent. Until there is a solution to the storage problem and until the costs (without subsidies) come way down they will not be practical. The only alternatives to fossil fuels for base load power include hydroelectric, geothermal, and nuclear power. Out of those base load sources, only nuclear power is scalable and free of geographical constraints. New Gen IV nuclear technologies promise to be even safer, cleaner and less expensive than the current fleet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tootsie56
help fellow travelers along the way, it comes back
08:56 PM on 03/27/2012
No, nuclear is not the answer. Are you even aware of how many are already in this country? Have you any idea where the closest one is to where you live?
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
09:07 PM on 03/27/2012
104

One is being considered within 40 miles of where I live. I support it completely.

Now then, do YOU know anything at all about nuclear power plants? How they operate? The safety features? Radiation? Fuel cycle?

Over 40 years, this country's 104 nuclear power plants have provided safe, clean and reliable base load power without every harming anyone. Coal plants produce 100 times more radioactivity than nuke plants. Tens on tons of radioactive uranium and thorium are contained in a years worth of coal ash per plant! 13,000 people die EACH year from coal plant particulates. Mercury from coal has contaminated the entire biosphere so that many infants are born in this country with minimal brain damage.

"Are you even aware", ....indeed!
NoahScape
Knowledge is good - Emil Faber
12:54 PM on 03/27/2012
This is hardly a done deal.

EPA will propose regulations, interested parties like utilities will pose challenges to the proposed regulations. Things will be bound up in litigation for years, and in the mean time, utilities will operate in uncertainty. So, the uncertainty from this will add to the uncertainty over natural gas pricing, which makes it all the more difficult to make plant investment decisions.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:42 PM on 03/27/2012
And just how does this legislation help the middle class? By increasing energy prices?
photo
TROOPER-X
Opportunity is Equal, not Wealth.
12:47 PM on 03/27/2012
This is exactly what it does. Makes it sound more fun though, when those who impose these regulations tell us they're for our own good.
NoahScape
Knowledge is good - Emil Faber
01:10 PM on 03/27/2012
Regulations don't get imposed without underlying legislation.
photo
elsquibbs
Socially liberal, fiscally prudent atheist.
05:32 PM on 03/27/2012
Stop asking the tough questions, please.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:11 PM on 03/27/2012
That's not a tough question at all.

Quoting myself:

'Evidence shows that the social costs in America of fossil fuels, and of coal in particular (measured in early deaths, medical impacts such as sick days and air quality alerts, and environmental degradation) exceed its benefits.'
photo
TROOPER-X
Opportunity is Equal, not Wealth.
12:40 PM on 03/27/2012
The "pro-energy" administration strikes again. If he had another abundant source of alternative fuel which could readily displace coal usage, yield a lower cost, and be more environmentally friendly............ it would be one thing. However, this administration has developed a consistently blatant disregard for our freedoms via their rogue regulations. If these environmental zealots find coal fired plants so offensive, they should disconnect their homes from the electrical grid. These same ideologues could also care less of what financial strain gasoline prices place on the average American, were it not for the politically-inconvenient implications.
NoahScape
Knowledge is good - Emil Faber
12:58 PM on 03/27/2012
These are proposed rules.

It took over 20 years to implement the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act which was signed by GHW Bush.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
11:43 PM on 03/28/2012
EPA estimated that its new rules would save 17,000 lives a year when in implemented in 2016.

Are dead people free? Is that what you are trying to say?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:34 PM on 03/27/2012
Human induced global warming is bunk.

Scientific proof found that it is a naturally occurring event.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
01:50 PM on 03/27/2012
The MWP was not global in extent and it is not proof of anything. You cite an article from the anti-science Daily Mail and think you've made your case. The world is so simple to simple minds.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:14 PM on 03/27/2012
The MWP was far more global than previously thought. Read the article Bugs.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:02 PM on 03/27/2012
Utterly false.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:35 PM on 03/27/2012
Absolutely true.
12:26 PM on 03/27/2012
To bad we don't have laws against companies taking government money than going bankrupt, and paying bonuses after the fact. Oh wait we do it's called Solyndra. But that's just a failed solar company that Obama and his political money donors supported, oops my bad. That shouldn't be in the news.

How about they investigate why all the climate studies have been forged and the data has been manipulated but that would be using their power for justice and good causes not backdoor policies that you cannot pass via voting.
NoahScape
Knowledge is good - Emil Faber
01:34 PM on 03/27/2012
Have you covered all the Fox News talking points or do you need some more time?
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
01:56 PM on 03/27/2012
Skeptic Dr. Richard Muller lead the Berkeley Earth project to reevaluate global surface temperature data. To his surprise he found that global warming is real.

http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2119098/berkley-earth-project-confirms-global-warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature

When the facts don't support your agenda, you can always fall back on a conspiracy theory.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:03 PM on 03/27/2012
It's the damn liberal scientists. Never mind that conservative scientists say the same thing.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Dude67
Question the official narrative
12:16 PM on 03/27/2012
If we took away all of the protections - tax breaks, subsidies, etc - from the fossil fuel industry and gave them to green energy - geothermal, wave, solar, wind, etc - we would be off fossil fuels in no time.  

The only reason we don't is energy conglomerates own every government in the industrialized world.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hardknocks
the future is unwritten
12:22 PM on 03/27/2012
Alternative source of power are what we are all striving for. At the present time we use and have an abundant source of energy using fossil fuels.

Everyone (I hope) understands that fossil fuels are not a renewable natural resource so alternatives must be found. While wind and solar are good options they cannot at present time supply the worlds needs

The market place dictates new technology. Our future generations will once again as with the past preserve and develop energy sources that not only sustain their lifestyles but their existence.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Dude67
Question the official narrative
12:39 PM on 03/27/2012
The "market place" is being manipulated by the companies that have a strange hold on our governments. This is my point. If we had a "free market" the fossil fuel industry would be toast in a couple of decades. But we have a Fascist system of crony protectionism. One in which alternatives are kept from being able to financially compete.
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
01:44 PM on 03/27/2012
Nuclear power is the only practical alternative to fossil fuels for base load. New Gen IV nuclear technologies will insure an inexhaustible source of cheap, clean base load power.
12:23 PM on 03/27/2012
That's a pipe dream as we already are subsidizing green energy in a big way and solar, wind etc. are not even close to being competitive OR more importantly, reliable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Dude67
Question the official narrative
12:34 PM on 03/27/2012
They are VERY close. I'd suspect based on your comment you make your living off the status quo energy industry. Indeed the green energy industry is right on their heels - T Boone Pickens proved this by dumping billions into wind farms as oil reached $150 per barrel. That investment didn't pan out because because the oil prices tanked when all the bogus capital used to prop it up was needed to cover other shady deals in the real estate, gov. debt, etc. If we stopped aiding the oil industry (one in which 11 figure quarterly profits are not unusual) they would be supplanted.
12:02 PM on 03/27/2012
Increased EPA regulations.

No better way to eliminate jobs and kill an economic recovery.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
JTaylor405
Republicans for Obama
12:11 PM on 03/27/2012
Right. Only fossil fuels support economic growth. Sure. And if we stop belching pollutants in the air we breath and the water we drink, what is going to happen to all those healthcare jobs now dedicated to diagnosing and treating asthma, COPD, heart disease and cancer? Think of all those healthcare jobs lost. Wow! Let us not be too hasty here. Fossil fuels are good for us! Right.
12:24 PM on 03/27/2012
I'm all for green energy. It just so happens that it costs more to produce than its worth.
12:25 PM on 03/27/2012
Absolutely they are. When you have a GNP like ours, we need energy, and lot's of it. It has to be reliable and plentiful. Supposed "Green" energy is neither. Our air and water quality is the best it's been in decades and the numbers that the EPA talks about, like Mercury, are just absolutley ridiculous. We get more naturally occurring from nature. And not only would reducing cheap energy cost us jobs, it will cost the poor and middle class a LOT of income which will NOT spur economic growth.
12:51 PM on 03/27/2012
wrong, this will create a lot of engineering and construction jobs. and there is so much natural gas out there, the cost of electricity might not go up at all. some utilities will just run their 'backup' natural gas power plants more frequently to offset any increased coal power costs. and by the way, what's wrong with clean air ? you conservatives should try being more positive.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackBuddha
I didn't mean to, I meant to
11:50 AM on 03/27/2012
Three Words:

Microwave Plasma Gasification.

Note: Coal and Natural Gas are major polluters before you even burn them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tikiman
Just out taking my dogma for a walk.
11:56 AM on 03/27/2012
And all this time I thought it meant Miles per Gallon.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BlackBuddha
I didn't mean to, I meant to
04:33 PM on 03/27/2012
I know. ...and it sounds like a Swanson dinner disaster.
photo
Hoodoo X
tanstaafl
11:50 AM on 03/27/2012
What about the heat trapping pollution that is generated by humans exhaling?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
JTaylor405
Republicans for Obama
12:12 PM on 03/27/2012
Please. For the benefit of the rest of the planet. You can stop breathing.
photo
abbienormal
What hump?
09:15 PM on 03/27/2012
X2.