States Should Shun the EPA’s New Power Mandate
The Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan sets the first ever federal limits on carbon pollution from existing power plants that causes climate change, invests in clean, renewable energy, and boosts energy efficiency. “This potential change could have a silver lining in terms of making sure that states have the opportunity to use energy efficiency as much as they want, and hopefully to the greatest extent possible, as it’s been proven to be the easiest, fastest and cheapest way to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from power plants”. Obama, in a video posted to Facebook, said the limits were backed up by decades of data and facts showing that without tough action, the world will face more extreme weather and escalating health problems like asthma.
“We’re already reducing carbon emissions”, Brooks said in a telephone interview.
The “final rule”, first proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency more than a year ago, is stronger and more sweeping than the draft it was based on.
This is exactly the issue that Lanny Nickell, VP of Engineering at Southwest Power Pool, told MetalMiner in an interview he is most concerned about: the virtually unachievable turnaround for interim emissions target goals to be met by 2020, before final goals must be met by 2030. Fred Durham, director of the DEP’s Division of Air Quality, said any new air pollution rules, or changes to existing rules made as part of a compliance plan, already would have needed legislative approval. That’s the only real explanation for their immediate rejection of the only now available mechanism for limiting climate pollution from its largest source – under a plan that’s flexible, achievable and affordable. It said that wind generation in West Virginia could more than triple by 2030 and solar capacity could increase from less than 2 megawatts to 410 megawatts over that same time.
The wish list is long for other changes from states that both oppose and support the EPA effort. But the EPA program means to swiftly reduce America’s reliance on coal-fired power generation.
But Beshear officials have had their concerns for Kentucky, the nation’s third biggest coal producing state. EPA will issue a federal implementation plan for states that do not submit their own plans.
The Clean Power Plan is expected to be finalized soon, and two new reports refute opponents’ claims that the plan will increase electric bills for Ohioans.
The Clean Air Act provides that a challenge to any “standard of performance or requirement under section [111]” – which will include EPA’s Clean Power Plan, when finalized – must be filed in the D.C. Circuit.
Last Monday, Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton said she would support Obama’s EPA rule if elected president.
Kateri Callahan, president of the Alliance to Save Energy, said jettisoning the demand-side building block potentially could improve the role efficiency plays in states’ compliance strategies. “That’s a promise”.
Previously, NERA Economic Consulting reported that the proposed rule would cost as much as $479 billion, and that it would drive up electricity rates by double digits in 43 states.
The rule comes at a time when the coal business is already on its knees.
“The renewable energy sector should be a clear victor while merchant coal-fired generators could end up the big losers”, Paul Patterson, a New York-based utility analyst for Glenrock Associates LLC., said in an e-mail.
Meanwhile, a small group of academics, activists and scientists will begin poring over the rule.
Letters were sent to governors in 29 states that had at least 10 companies participating in the campaign headquartered or operating there.
But the fight that matters most will be legal.
The effort failed – the judges were perplexed by the notion of blocking a mere proposal – but the arguments are likely to live on.
The new rules come as coal production and employment in the second quarter of 2015 continued its rapid fall.
This reality is not only recognized by the clean energy sector.