Coal-fired power plants are not only the largest source of U.S. carbon emissions-accounting for roughly 33 percent-they’re also the leading industrial source of such toxic pollutants as mercury, nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, which have been linked to a range of cancers and cardiovascular, respiratory and neurological diseases. “Thanks to its combination of low cost and zero emissions, wind energy has the largest role in cost-effectively meeting the carbon rule”.
Advertisement
It’s important to note that most of these changes – more renewables, more natural gas, fewer coal-fired power plants – are happening anyway.
“The effect of the proposed rule will be a worsening of the poverty already dominant in eastern Kentucky”, while also warning of potential impacts to the state’s manufacturing base, the state warned. The final rule achieves a 9 percent greater cut, according to a summary provided by the administration. One EPA document, which was uncovered last week by E&E Publishing’s EnergyWire, indicated that the final rule might give states an additional two years, for a total of three years, to come up with their compliance plans. In September, Obama will host Pope Francis, an equally ardent apostle for battling climate change.
Denis McDonough said earlier this week that there was “no overstating” how big the plan was for climate change and that the administration would finalise a stronger rule. As a result, there will be less of an “early rush to gas”.
This wasn’t the original plan.
President Barack Obama is expected to unveil the standards himself on Monday.
The former first lady, senator and secretary of state has adopted an aggressive stance on climate change and used the issue to rally liberal voters against her Republican rivals.
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.
“The final rollout of the Clean Power Plan will have polluters throwing everything they can at the EPA and the White House because they know the deck is stacked against them legally”, said Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club. The EPA’s plan doesn’t even make a dent in the global increase in carbon emissions, much less lead to any global decrease.
Tomas Carbonell, EDF’s Director of Regulatory Policy, said, “EPA has a long history of creating regulations that are firmly rooted in science and the law, and the courts have recognized that”.
What are the costs likely to be?
Finally, challengers may assert that EPA’s factual determinations are “arbitrary and capricious” or so clearly wrong they must be overturned. This pollution poses a growing threat to our public health every day. The reality is the benefits of environmental regulations far outweigh their costs.
Industry panelists at the ELECTRIC POWER 2015 conference in April were unanimous that the aggressive schedule in the proposed rule would have broad negative consequences and possibly increase overall emissions compared to later deadlines that would allow more time for the power sector to make changes.
The Times report is buttressed by a discovery made by E&E EnergyWire on the EPA web site, a PowerPoint slide showing the new timeline that was apparently posted prematurely.
Nonetheless, the plan is the centerpiece of the Obama administration’s push to cut emissions. States have to submit an initial version of their plans by 2016 and final versions by 2018.
Advertisement
“Clean Power Plan implementation will reduce risky power plant pollution that triggers asthma attacks, heart attacks, and premature deaths”.
