iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

EPA Power Plant Regulations To Limit Heat-Trapping Pollution

By DINA CAPPIELLO 03/27/12 02:43 PM ET AP

WASHINGTON — 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

FOLLOW GREEN

WASHINGTON — 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 hav...
WASHINGTON — 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 hav...
Filed by James Gerken  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 98
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
mistergg69
obama 2012
10:47 PM on 03/28/2012
Let's make all pro-pollution republicans live next to coal fired power plants and have them drink contaminated water and breathe dirty air for a few weeks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
02:50 PM on 03/28/2012
Look on the bright side. Since 2005, pollution from coal plants is already way down. This includes sulfur dioxide and particulates.

"The scientists, led by an Environment Canada researcher, have shown that sulfur dioxide levels in the vicinity of major coal power plants have fallen by nearly half since 2005."
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/coal-pollution.html

Mercury emissions were already way down. Our bigger challenge is emissions from Asia.

http://www.epa.gov/CAMR/pdfs/slide2rev1.pdf
"84% of mercury deposited in the US comes from sources outside the US and Canada."
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
05:22 PM on 03/28/2012
Studies show that there would be much less coal pollution if there were no active coal plants.

Other studies (notably CATF's "The Toll From Coal") show that 13,200 Americans die every year from diseases caused by coal microparticulate pollution. That is ~35 Americans a day dying preventable deaths due to coal power.

Yet more studies show that the costs of coal to public health and the environment due to air pollution equals or exceeds its economic benefits, notably this one:

'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.'

There is no reason to allow coal to continue. None. We have technologies that can replace it at scale, and they in fact turn out to be cheaper once coal's true costs to society are factored in.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
06:02 PM on 03/28/2012
No doubt. But until China gets rid of their coal plants, we'll still have lots of coal pollution in this country. The EPA can't fix that. The State Department is needed.

"One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all
01:36 PM on 04/02/2012
Which technologies can "replace it at scale?"
01:14 PM on 03/28/2012
While it is great that we are taking the necessary precautions to close harmful plants and places of work it is easy to forget something, what happens next here? Regulations like these while they are of great aid to workers and businesses in terms of safety the thing they are safe from is also not having a job. Without some kind of replacement for jobs that are going to be lost in similar industries due to regulation, it does little good to keep these rules if you don’t have a way to replace the work that they were just doing (http://eng.am/wJ61AM). Reviewing regulatory policies like these can aid us in our economic recovery my figuring out what makes sense for businesses at a time rather than just consistently force feeding regulations into industry.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
06:14 PM on 03/28/2012
Less regulated coal is MORE expensive to our economy, not less.
10:20 PM on 03/31/2012
Maslin thank you for responding. I am talking about the initial blow that regulations deliver to businesses and how because regulations change so frequently it often leaves workers high and dry. The argument that it is more expensive to our economy may be true but it's even more expensive to those who now cannot find work in facilities due to strict regulation that has had no time to be thoroughly reviewed or at the least adjusted to. I am more for a side by side comparison and review of regulatory policy rather than just, "slapping on another regulation"
09:41 AM on 03/28/2012
It could be enough but only if everyone plays by the same rules and no special dispensations.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OOOOOMY
04:12 AM on 03/28/2012
Finally, Think about the further expansion of an entitlement nation. Think about the largest number of people on food stamps. Think about all the taxpayer money wasted on now over 10-20? Green Companies Solyandra the Poster child. Think about all the Phony Capitalism corruption and deals.
Think about all the blames put forth...and seriously ask yourselves, do we really need all this rammed yet again down our throats at this time?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OOOOOMY
04:10 AM on 03/28/2012
?How many recall this video:

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket - YouTube

Co 2 emissions control was placed under EPA regulation by President Obama, he knew Congress would not pass that issue and to spur further his Green Energy Agenda. The result, all coal fired plants would have the cost of doing business so high they it would bankrupt companies, Result anyway you look at, all consumers would see "electric rates skyrocket".
It has been estimated the average consumer is about to be hit a 19% increase in electric rates according to independent agencies that I cannot recall at this time.,,So then wait and see for yourselves.
Do we really need this assault so fast vs. a more gradual approach for No One Is really Against Clean Air.
Think about current gasoline costs, consumer products, groceries, taxation, more regulations. Think about a very lack luster economy that are months years away from anything near what we were some time ago. Think about our crippling national debt approaching 16 Trillion at a cost of billions per week just in interest alone. Think about a possible confrontation with Iran and further oil supply (small) interuption. Think monster of regulations that may be mandated, if SCOTUS decides ObamaCare Constitutional forcing all Americans buy health insurance.
Think about further expansion of an entitlement nation. Think about the largest number of people on food stamps. Think about all the taxpayer money wasted on over 10-20? Green Companies Solyandra the Poster child.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mezca
Witness to the end... and maybe a new beginning.
10:31 PM on 03/27/2012
Conservative Environmentalists = Fallacy
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
12:31 AM on 03/28/2012
Count me among that group. I would like to think that T. Roosevelt probably would have listened to the scientists. I wish more Republicans would look to Teddy as an example.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mezca
Witness to the end... and maybe a new beginning.
10:02 AM on 03/28/2012
Good article thanks for the info. Sometimes its nice to be proven wrong. :)
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:42 PM on 03/27/2012
'WASHINGTON — 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.'

According to this study,

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

coal power costs more than it delivers us in economic benefits. In fact, according to the 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.'

So coal costs us somewhere between ~1X to ~6X what it delivers in economic value.

It is important to note that these costs of coal DO NOT include CO2 releases, which shift the picture even more violently.

Coal is not cheap; less regulated coal is even less cheap.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
02:34 AM on 03/28/2012
"Coal is not cheap; less regulated coal is even less cheap."

China didn't get the memo.

Psst: China is kicking our tails right now economically. Regardless, our coal plants are immensely cleaner.

Someone should inform Saudi Arabia that their oil has negative value. I'm sure they are laughing all the way to the bank.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
03:24 AM on 03/28/2012
That's because the Chinese government doesn't care very much how many Chinese people sicken and die from the government's coal plant emissions.

In this country, 13,200 Americans die every year from coal power microparticulate matter. This is just one of the many pollutants coal power emits. Others are larger releases of radioactivity than nuclear plants, megatons of CO2, heavy metals, and all kinds of unpleasant stuff.

In China, the estimates for coal related mortality are in the half million range, and that is a yearly figure.

So please, keep digging yourself a hole by pushing the Chinese energy model.
photo
Reaganite60
Don't tread on me.
07:18 PM on 03/27/2012
Brilliant idea to reduce coal plants considering most electricity for those hybrid and electric cars is produced in COAL powered plants.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:43 PM on 03/27/2012
Yup. Closing coal plants is a great idea. The faster we can do it, the more likely we will have a future.
photo
Reaganite60
Don't tread on me.
07:49 PM on 03/27/2012
How will you loons power your dingy little hybrid vehicles?
10:21 PM on 03/27/2012
Do you even know how a hybrid vehicle works? It does not use an external (plug-in) power source at all. It runs off an internal battery that is recharged as the vehicle drives.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
05:12 PM on 03/27/2012
"The latest rule will make it impossible to build any new coal-fueled power plants"

Meanwhile, China will build more faster. In fact, we can export to them our coal. No sense leaving the cash in the ground.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
07:45 PM on 03/27/2012
I love to see conservatives arguing that we should be more like China. It shows exactly how tightly they hold to fundamental American values.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
09:52 PM on 03/27/2012
I suppose conservatives like jobs.
05:03 PM on 03/27/2012
"...Heat-Trapping Pollution...."

Anyone who believes this has the IQ of a worm.

CO2 is Plant Food. Nothing more. Nothing less.

To say otherwise is proof you never graduated kindergarten. Even you convinced someone to hand you a PHD. That is only proof that US Universities are worthless.
photo
blackwind
Relax, nothing is under control
05:39 PM on 03/27/2012
Of course carbon dioxide traps heat.
With no more than high-school level knowledge and a little simple equipment you could prove it several different ways, on your kitchen table.
It sounds like you've got a load of another type of plant food between your ears.
07:37 PM on 03/27/2012
"...With no more than high-school level knowledge and a little simple equipment you could prove it several different ways, on your kitchen table. ..."

Debunked. Over and over and over. The 'tabletop' experiment proves that everyone who believes this stuff, including you, is a total 100% fraud.

But then, you actually have to have a brain to a)have done the experiment and b) to not be totally neurally washed by enviro-nutsies thinking you didn't have to check their nonsense.
photo
Silken17
Just a hare in your soup
07:57 PM on 03/27/2012
Ever see a CO2 laser burn a hole through a sheet of steel? It's pretty spectacular. The beam is invisible and there is a loud crack when the laser is energized. Of course, the laser depends on CO2's ability to re-radiate infrared radiation, aka HEAT.

CO2 in the atmosphere does the same thing. It re-radiates long wave infrared radiation back to the surface. It's been proven experimentally.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Alan Holyoak
I can't do everything, but I can do something
03:10 PM on 03/27/2012
Makes me proud to be an American!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
05:13 PM on 03/27/2012
China is proud too. They've achieved one more edge.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
02:08 AM on 03/28/2012
It's too bad if they poison themselves, but it doesn't mean we should race them for the pill.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Gary Liberson
02:59 PM on 03/27/2012
This seems a very long time in coming. I have always been surprised when I hear about a new coal-fired plant being built. Yet, the EPA's lack of action on this issue has shown the business wisdom (if not environment wisdom) of companies that built new plants. Even Carol Browner and Al Gore, for all their talk, never really delayed new plants being built.

There is a WSJ article on this regulation that is accompanied by a long list of commenters whining about the future of the country without enough coal-fired plants. The facts don't seem to support the nay-sayers. According to North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) data, between 2006 and 2010 coal-fired generation has dropped about 200,000 MWh while nuclear generation has increased 600,000 MWh. Over the same period, utilities have doubled the number of hours that coal-fired units are shutdown because of lack of demand. All this, while natural gas units spend two-thirds of the time idle. The CBO issued a report a few years back that showed there was substantial gas-fired capacity to replace or augment about 20% of coal-fired generation.

If the explanations of the regulation are correct, then existing coal-fired plants can still upgrade their equipment and improve efficiency while only dealing with existing new-source regulations.
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
racebaiter
Yellow Black or White WWJD
01:22 PM on 03/27/2012
They (EPA) Hasn't gone far enough.. They should not allow any oil burning furnaces in new house's. Shuttin down all coal burning power plants for at least 3 years would clean up the environment by 75% according to experts. We could still keep warm by wearing more sweaters in the winter and less clohing in the summer. I would do it Also no more barbecuing unless it's with gas and not carbon based brickettes. Three years should not be that much to ask for. Support President Obama 2012 and all his proposals including the secret ones like with Russia. Gobama 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
05:06 PM on 03/27/2012
"...Shuttin down all coal burning power plants for at least 3 years would clean up the environment by 75% according to experts..."

What experts? You mean those bhrain Dhead gub'mint workers who spend 99.99999999% of their work day surfing porn? You mean those experts?

HA.

My dachshund makes a better expert. And cuter too.