Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Carbon Wars: The New EPA Rules to Reduce Carbon Emissions at U.S. Power Plants

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Robert.Boston

Model S VIN P01536
Moderator
The Obama Administration is expected to release its proposed and controversial rule to restrict CO2 emissions from existing power plants next Monday, June 2nd. This proposal represents an historic turning point, which could permanently reshape the sources of electric generation in the U.S.


This regulation comes at a time of great change and upheaval in traditional energy markets. Federal environmental requirements, low-cost natural gas, and rapidly growing renewable energy are displacing coal-fired generation – and are threatening traditional utility business models. And EPA’s proposal could result in even more far-reaching changes.


For a first look at the potential repercussions of EPA’s proposal, click here. ​This is a link to a summary prepared by a firm I've done work with over the years.
 
This is really such a significant event, I think it deserves it's own thread. As you may have known, the EPA has been crafting new rules for power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. This is the first time the United States has create such a rule for carbon emissions, and is likely to boost our position ahead of the 2015 Climate Summit in Paris. In this thread I would like to discuss the significance of the new rules, monitor how the rules are implemented across states, and debate the impact of the rules as well as the response to them.

From the article How Obama's EPA Will Cut Coal Pollution - Scientific American

The next step in Obama's regulatory plan for climate change will land Monday morning. Unlike the rule for future power plants, this proposal will be much further-reaching, an effort to scale down the source of 40 percent of the country's climate warming gases by regulating the plants that are in operation today. According to the schedule set last year in the Climate Action Plan, EPA must release a final rule by June 2015. Once that happens, states have a year to submit plans to EPA for how they will comply with the rule.
It may force some states to overhaul their energy policies and could favor others that have taken a head start to establish climate policies. It could cause electricity prices to rise but could also change how the electric sector—from the power plant to the grid to the home or business—operates. One of the few certainties of this regulation: It will bring a lot of lawsuits.

EPA says it wants the rule to incorporate flexibility. What does that mean?
If power plant operators were limited to fixing their facilities to trim carbon, the savings would be relatively minimal, around 3 to 5 percent, say observers of the rule. In order to get substantial savings, states will need to use a number of other mechanisms to cut carbon. These include boosting efficiency in homes and businesses, using wind, sun and biomass for renewable energy, or putting more natural gas-fired power into the grid and less coal power. They also include economic mechanisms, like a cap-and-trade system or carbon tax. Many states that have implemented climate policies, like renewable portfolio standards or efficiency measures, want the rule to include enough flexibility to recognize state efforts achieved in the absence of a national climate policy.


From the article: Obama lends support to EPAs upcoming power plant rule - The Washington Post

The proposal is still being finalized, but several individuals familiar with the rule said it will cut carbon emissions from the electricity sector over the next two decades while giving state regulators and utility companies the flexibility to meet federal targets through measures including greater energy efficiency and investments in solar and wind power.
Many of the public health benefits associated with the regulation stem from the fact that the phasing out of older coal-fired plants will cut soot, or fine particulate matter, which is linked to both heart and lung disease.
The address, which the president recorded Friday at Washington’s Children’s National Medical Center, is the first phase in a multi-step rollout aimed at marshaling public support for the climate proposal. After EPA Administator Gina McCarthy announces it Monday, the president will participate in a call with advocacy groups organized by the American Lung Association.
“Today, about 40 percent of America’s carbon pollution comes from power plants. But right now, there are no national limits to the amount of carbon pollution that existing plants can pump into the air we breathe. None,” Obama said. “We limit the amount of toxic chemicals like mercury, sulfur, and arsenic that power plants put in our air and water. But they can dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the air. It’s not smart, it’s not safe and it doesn’t make sense.”

From the article: Obamas boldest move on carbon comes with perils - Yahoo News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The new pollution rule the Obama administration announces Monday will be a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's environmental legacy and arguably the most significant U.S. environmental regulation in decades.

But it's not one the White House wanted.

As with other issues, the regulation to limit the pollution blamed for global warming from power plants is a compromise for Obama, who again finds himself caught between his aspirations and what is politically and legally possible.

It will provoke a messy and drawn-out fight with states and companies that produce electricity, and may not be settled until the eve of the next presidential election in 2016, or beyond.

"It's going to be like eating spaghetti with a spoon. It can be done, but it's going to be messy and slow," said Michael Gerrard, director of the Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University.

At the crux of the problem is Obama's use of a 1970 law that was not intended to regulate the gases blamed for global warming. Obama was forced to rely on the Clean Air Act after he tried and failed to get Congress to pass a new law during his first term. When the Republicans took over the House, the goal became impossible.

The new rule, as the president described it in a news conference in 2010, is another way of "skinning the cat" on climate change.

"For anybody who cares about this issue, this is it," Heather Zichal, Obama's former energy and climate adviser, said in an interview with The Associated Press. "This is all the president has in his toolbox."

I for one am happy with the new rules. I wish that there was legislation instead, but given the political climate that is practically impossible. I am hopeful that coal plant emissions will be reduced and that coal plants themselves will be reduced as well. There is a hell of a fight ahead though. The coal industry, utilities, and the Republican party are likely going to fire every cannon and launch a full attack on these rules. That's the part I'm nervous about. I think we're going to be able to succeed in dramatically reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. with these rules, but we're going to walk away from the fight battered and bruised.
 
I'm going to be interested to see these rules on Monday. My guess is that many states are already compliant, or can easily become so. In particular, California and the RGGI states already have a mechanism in place to shift the generation mix away from coal: a carbon tax. Oregon is shutting down its last coal-fired plant, Boardman, in 2020; Washington State has only one coal plant, Centralia, that accounts for only about 5% of the state's electricity output.

While people talk about a "war on coal," some states use a lot of refined oil products for electric generation (Hawaii and Alaska, in particular). I wonder how the regulations will treat these?
 
And here's the expected response:

States move to blunt Obama carbon plan - Yahoo News

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — As President Barack Obama prepares to announce tougher new air quality standards, lawmakers in several states already are trying to blunt the impact on aging coal-fired power plants that feed electricity to millions of consumers.

The push against Obama's new carbon emission standards has been strongest in some states that have large coal-mining industries or rely heavily on coal to fuel their electricity. State officials say the new federal regulations could jeopardize the jobs of thousands of workers and drive up the monthly electric bills of residents and businesses.

It remains to be seen whether new measures passed by the states will amount to mere political symbolism or actually temper what's expected to be an aggressive federal effort to reduce the country's reliance on coal. But either way, states likely will play a pivotal role, because federal clean air laws leave it up to each state to come up its own plan for complying with the emission guidelines.
The proposed Environmental Protection Agency rules to be announced Monday could be the first to apply to carbon dioxide emissions at existing power plants. Coal is the most common fuel source for the nation's electricity and, when it's burned, is a leading source of the greenhouse gasses that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to climate change.
Without waiting to see what Obama proposes, governors in Kansas, Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia have signed laws directing their environmental agencies to develop their own carbon emission plans that consider the costs of compliance at individual power plants. Similar measures recently passed in Missouri and are pending in the Louisiana and Ohio legislatures.

Missouri lawmakers went even further in their defense of the coal industry. When activists proposed a ballot initiative barring local tax breaks for St. Louis-based Peabody Energy, state lawmakers quickly passed a measure banning such moves.
 
This is going to be interesting. Putting aside the academic arguments about climate change (because they're rather emotional and tend only to drive activists, not mainstream consumers), I predict it's going to go something like this:

1. Energy companies in coal-based states file massive rate increase requests (~30-50%) with state PUC's citing compliance costs - both regulatory paperwork and technology.
2a. States sympathetic to business permit the rate increases. Consumers socked with a huge increase in electricity costs start screaming at their congresscritters. Congresscritters who want to be elected "fix" the problem by removing it.
2b. States unsympathic to business disallow the rate increases, telling energy companies to suck it up. Said companies pay their lobbyists, who go after the congresscritters with issue ads during the election. Congresscritters who want to be elected "fix" the problem by removing it.
3. Problem solved, to the congresscritters.

As I've said in the climate change threads, this issue is not an academic issue, it's an economic issue that will drive rates up significantly in certain areas of the country. Consumers, especially in the current climate, won't like the economic impact of such a rule, no matter how much the academics are giddy with glee.
 
House Speaker Boehner: Obama's plan is "nuts"

BOEHNER: Obama's Plan Is 'Nuts' - Yahoo Finance

House Speaker John Boehner had a blunt reaction to the Obama administration's new EPA regulations announced Monday, calling the plan "nuts."
"The president’s plan is nuts. There’s really no more succinct way to describe it," Boehner said in a statement shortly after the new rule was released.
In his statement, Boehner framed the plan in terms Republicans will likely repeat over and over again heading into the 2014 midterm elections. He called it a "national energy tax."
"In many ways, this national energy tax is actually worse than the scheme Americans rejected four years ago," Boehner said of Obama's cap-and-trade proposal that didn't muster its way through Congress. "The House has already passed legislation to prevent these rules from taking effect without the approval of the people’s representatives. The question now is: will Senate Democrats listen to the American people and stop this disaster or will they back the president all the way?"
 
This will significantly increase energy costs in a number of states. It will be interesting to see if voters in those states believe the costs are worth the effects. To blunt the impact of this, it would be nice to see some regulatory effort to streamline creation of more nuclear and natural gas fired power plants (and solar, but that won't save energy costs at all).
 
This is going to be interesting. Putting aside the academic arguments about climate change (because they're rather emotional and tend only to drive activists, not mainstream consumers)

[...]

As I've said in the climate change threads, this issue is not an academic issue, it's an economic issue that will drive rates up significantly in certain areas of the country. Consumers, especially in the current climate, won't like the economic impact of such a rule, no matter how much the academics are giddy with glee.
It must be really convenient to just be able to disregard all of the available climate science by simply labeling it "emotional".

And,

Oh look an activist! A.k.a. a human being actually acting on the very best science available. Science that there happens to be a ~97% consensus about. Oh, the absolute horror!

And a question:

Is it really so difficult to understand that people get emotional about a rising global mean sea level – it’s already up ~9 inches and the rate of rise is increasing – and all the other changes in global climate that climate science are warning us about?

Are you completely void of any emotion what so ever?

How about you back up your very own personal opinion of one with some sort of scientific evidence, instead of just repeating completely empty rhetoric?




activist.png

activism.png



Sources:

activist - definition of activist by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

activism - definition of activism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure it isn't just the climate activist side that's getting emotional.

Rand Paul Vows To Repeal 'Illegal' EPA Climate Rule | The Daily Caller

Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is not happy about the Environmental Protection Agency’s new carbon dioxide emissions limits for power plants, arguing it is an “illegal use of executive power.”
Paul has vowed to force a vote on the EPA’s rule to repeal it.
“This latest assault on our economy by President Obama will destroy jobs here in Kentucky and across the country, and will hurt middle class families by hiking their utility bills and straining their budgets,” said Paul in a statement.
“The excessive rule is an illegal use of executive power, and I will force a vote to repeal it,” Paul added.
Kentucky is the country’s third largest coal producing state and employs thousands of miners. The state has already been hard hit by federal environmental regulation which have seen thousands of coal jobs leave the state and force the closing of coal mines and power plants.
“By imposing these draconian new rules on the nation’s coal industry, President Obama and every other liberal lawmaker in Washington who quietly supports them is also picking regional favorites, helping their political supporters in states like California and New York while inflicting acute pain on states like Kentucky,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Paul’s fellow Kentucky senator.

“Overall, the South Atlantic will be hit the hardest in terms of GDP and employment declines. Its GDP losses make up about one-fifth of total U.S.,” the Chamber’s report predicted. “This region also will have an average of 60,000 fewer jobs over the 2014-30 forecast period, hitting a 171,000 job loss trough in 2022.”

“The impact on individuals and families and entire regions of the country will be catastrophic, as a proud domestic industry is decimated — and many of its jobs shipped overseas,” McConnell added. “In short, the downstream effects of today’s announcement will be staggering for millions.”



 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure it isn't just the climate activist side that's getting emotional.

Rand Paul Vows To Repeal 'Illegal' EPA Climate Rule | The Daily Caller



[/LEFT]

Ok, I don't want to come off sounding like I'm not a caring person, but I think loss of jobs is just a fact in this switch to sustainable energy. We adapt to the changing world and it's technology, that's what we do as a civilization. What I see here are people who are scared to have to switch job fields, industry scared of losing $, and politicans scared of losing their jobs. So what we have here is a society that is destroying it's home all the while too scared to move forward to better the place they inhabit.....
 
Ok, I don't want to come off sounding like I'm not a caring person, but I think loss of jobs is just a fact in this switch to sustainable energy. We adapt to the changing world and it's technology, that's what we do as a civilization. What I see here are people who are scared to have to switch job fields, industry scared of losing $, and politicans scared of losing their jobs. So what we have here is a society that is destroying it's home all the while too scared to move forward to better the place they inhabit.....

I agree. Much like people probably lost jobs from conversion of horse and buggy to cars, some people will lose their jobs. If that means a national fuel tax to fund a job retraining program then I would be fine with that.
 
Last edited:
More @ Lloyd:

NOTE: The source linked below includes hyperlinks to actual peer-reviewed scientific data.

What does past climate change tell us about global warming?


What the science says...

/…/

Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.



Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before

Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)


A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, and this somehow tells us that humans can't be the main cause of the current global warming. Peer-reviewed research and simple logic show this is not the case.

It's important to know there are a number of different forces acting on the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. It's worth remembering that without some greenhouse gas the Earth would be a ball of ice.

These forces are called "forcings" because they force changes in the global average temperature.

Looking at the past gives us insight into how our climate responds to such forcings. Usingice cores, for instance, we can work out past temperature changes, the level of solar activity, and the amount of greenhouse gases and volcanic dust in the atmosphere. Looking at many different periods and timescales including many thousands of years ago we've learned that when the Earth gains heat, glaciers and sea ice melt resulting in a positive feedbacks that amplify the warming. There are other positive feedbacks as well and this is why the planet has experienced such dramatic changes in temperature in the past.

In summary the past reveals our climate is sensitive to small changes in heat.

What does that mean for today? Over the past 150 years greenhouse gas levels have increased 40 percent mainly from burning of fossil fuels. This additional "forcing" is warming the planet more than it has in thousands of years. From Earth's history, we know that positive feedbacks will amplify this additional warming.

The Earth's climate has changed in the past and ice cores and other measures tell us why. Based on this knowledge, and other types of evidence we know the human emissions of greenhouse gases are warming the climate.

The 'climate changed naturally in the past' argument is a logical fallacy known as non sequitur, in which the conclusion doesn't follow from the arguments. It's equivalent to seeing a dead body with a knife sticking out the back, then arguing the death must be natural because people died naturally in the past. It fails to even consider the available evidence. [My underline.]

Last updated on 4 February 2014 /...


Source:

Myth #1: What does past climate change tell us about global warming? | Skeptical Science – Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism

NOTE: The source linked above includes hyperlinks to actual peer-reviewed scientific data.
 
Last edited:
Guys, I appreciate the discussion on climate change. But we pretty much already have a thread for that. I would like for this one to be focused on the economic/environmental/health impact of the very new EPA rules. Please do not let this thread get off track.