New Coal Plants Rush Completion to Beat EPA’s Postponed Emission Rules

April 24th, 2013 | Bulldog Blog | | One comment

Politics Trumps Clean Air?  Climate Change Can Kicked Down the Road

On April 12, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would delay regulations on greenhouse gases from new power plants after hearing complaints from the electric power industry. The much anticipated rules would have effectively prohibited the construction of new coal-fired power plants and remains one of the few major tools the Obama administration could use to address greenhouse gas emissions, given the current gridlock in Congress.

The proposed rule, published in March 2012, would have limited emissions from new power plants larger than 25 megawatts to 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (CO2/MWh). With the average coal-fired power plant emitting 1,768 pounds of CO2/MWh, future coal plants would not meet the standard without carbon capture and sequestration.

According to the Energy Information Administration, there are 13 proposed coal projects over the next four years, totaling 8,336 megawatts of capacity. These facilities would be subjected to emissions limits if the EPA finalizes its rule, potentially killing many of these projects. On April 3, The Macon Telegraph reported that developers of an 850-megawatt coal plant in Sandersville, GA were in a “dead sprint” to complete the project before EPA solidified the rule. Now that EPA delayed the rule, when the plant finishes construction, it will qualify as an “existing” power plant, avoiding greenhouse gas limits.

EPA decided this month to revise the rules, ostensibly to firm them up in order to withstand legal attacks. The utility industry opposes the rule and threatened litigation because they argue the rule violates the Clean Air Act.

Senator James Inhofe

The rule is an outgrowth of the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts vs. EPA. The court found that under the Clean Air Act, the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases if found to be an endangerment to public health. This ruling led to EPA’s December 2009 “endangerment finding,” which declared greenhouse gases to, in fact, be a threat to public health.

Using this legal foundation, last year the EPA proposed limits on greenhouse gases for new power plants. However, under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is required to set standards so that industry can meet them using the “best system of emission reduction.” The industry argues coal plants cannot meet the proposed limits of 1,000 pounds of CO2/MWh because carbon capture and sequestration is not yet available. Thus, the industry claims, EPA’s regulation is illegal.

Fearing the rule would not hold up in court, the EPA decided to revise the rule to provide separate emissions limits for coal and natural gas. (Natural gas plants emit only about 800 pounds of CO2/MWh.) However, rewriting the rule will significantly delay implementation. The EPA Press Secretary, Alisha Johnson stated that “no timetable has been set,” for issuing the rule.

Robert Perciasepe

More importantly, by delaying the rule on new power plants, limits on greenhouse gases from existing power plants – something Acting EPA Administrator Robert Perciasepe stated the agency would like to roll out within 18 months – could be pushed back as well. While rules on new power plants may stop a dozen or so coal plants from being considered, there are currently over 1,400 existing coal generating stations, adding up to 343 gigawatts of power. Together, these power plants account for about 28% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States is to deal with climate change in a meaningful way, it will need to shut down the vast majority of the coal plants already operating.

Gina McCarthy

While the EPA claims that it is rewriting the rule to ensure it can withstand a legal challenge – which necessarily means watering them down – there remains the possibility that political calculation played a role. President Obama has nominated Gina McCarthy for EPA Administrator, but she had not yet been confirmed by April 13, the deadline EPA was required to meet to finalize the rule. During her confirmation hearing, Republicans raised little opposition to her nomination, focusing their ire on the lack of transparency at the EPA.

Despite the general congeniality between Senate Republicans and McCarthy, who has previously worked for Republican governors, the prospect of issuing a final rule on limits of greenhouse gas emissions for power plants might have changed that equation. In fact, Senator James Inhofe, who has long called climate change a “hoax,” sent a letter to Gina McCarthy on April 16, 2013 asking whether or not she will agree to withdraw the rule on limiting greenhouse gas emissions on new power plants if confirmed as EPA Administrator. From the letter:

“If confirmed, will you agree to withdraw the current rule so the Agency can deliberate on the path forward it plans to take without unnecessarily impacting the immediate construction of new [electricity generating units]?”

One has to wonder whether or not the administration anticipated the rule becoming a political firestorm. After the contentious nomination process for Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, it’s possible the administration did not want to revisit a fight with Senate Republicans until McCarthy is safely confirmed.

Meanwhile, the decision by the EPA to delay the rules means that for the time being there will continue to be no limits on greenhouse gases from power plants. With zero prospect of legislative action from Congress, EPA authority under the Clean Air Act to address greenhouse gases remains one of the few avenues to rein in carbon pollution. However, the administration has punted once again.

Big Coal Targets Northwest to Get to Asian Markets – Environmentalists Fight Back

November 26th, 2012 | Natural Resources News Service | | One comment

Cherry Point Reach, Washington State

In Cherry Point, Washington, north of Bellingham, conservationists have worked for more than a decade to restore the annual herring runs that occur off the coast. Over the past 40 years, stocks have declined on this 10-mile stretch of coastline from about 17,000 tons of herring spawning off the coast to less than 1,000 tons.

Biologists who have studied the problem blame three refineries, which combined see about 600 to 700 ship visits per year. Now one of the world’s largest shipping companies, SSA Marine, wants to build a new terminal here with the potential to ship up to 50 million tons of North American coal annually to China. The so-called Gateway Pacific Terminal would double ship traffic with much larger vessels and increase rail traffic in the region. Continue reading Big Coal Targets Northwest to Get to Asian Markets – Environmentalists Fight Back

Taking It to the Streets

August 29th, 2011 | Bulldog Blog | | Leave a comment

At a time when science itself is under assault and the Environmental Protection Agency’s future is challenged, NASA scientist and global climate change awareness activist James Hansen spoke at the National Press Club on Monday in opposition to the proposed Keystone XL – a 1700-mile, $7 billion pipeline which would carry heavy crude oil from “tar sand” mines in Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Texas and Louisiana coasts.

Environmental protesters have been picketing in front of the White House in opposition to the pipeline. On Friday, the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs issued its final environmental analysis that said TransCanada’s proposed pipeline will have “limited adverse environmental impacts.” The Obama administration is expected to approve or reject Keystone XL by the end of the year.

One of the Bureau’s responsibilities is representing the country on global climate change issues. Its website says:

The United States is taking a leading role in addressing climate change by advancing an ever-expanding suite of measures. We have initiated a number of polices and partnerships that span a wide range of initiatives from reducing our emissions at home to developing transformational low-carbon technologies to improving observations systems that will help us better understand and address the possible impacts of climate change. Our efforts emphasize the importance of results-driven action both internationally and domestically.

Hansen says the oil produced through this unconventional fossil fuel process is “extremely dirty stuff.” In its place, he supports instituting a $10 a ton tax on carbon for 10 years and giving these monies ($600 billion by his estimation) to American families to offset the costs of alternative energy sources. “Tax carbon and give the money to the people. That would stimulate the economy,” he says in response to a question about the jobs the pipeline project would create. He believes that giving money directly to families (he says between $6000 to $9000 per year) is better than previously pursued “cap and trade” policies that would be overtaken by big bank trading instruments.

He is joining several religious leaders today in Washington protesting the Keystone XL pipeline project. Their efforts are to draw attention to “the moral duty to preserve creation.”

He says in his meeting with Senator John Kerry about these issues, the senator called his ideas “unrealistic.” With the Obama administration’s support for the pipeline and leading Republican presidential candidates who do not believe global warning exists or, if it does, humans do not contribute to it, he is turning his attention away from politics and to grassroots advocacy to educate the public on climate change issues.

Hansen says the country is falling behind on alternative energy research and countries like China are investing in future technologies like solar, wind and nuclear. As a physicist, he supports pursuing “fourth generation” nuclear reactors as one of the few on-demand power sources that could meet the world’s energy needs. He believes new reactor designs will produce less waste that is dangerous only for decades rather than the waste current reactors generate that is dangerous for centuries and for which there is no permanent storage facility.

Read more at The Washington Post and The New York Times.

 

Airline Industry Fights European Union Carbon Cap

July 11th, 2011 | Bulldog Blog | | 2 comments

Over the last century, innovation in global air transport has opened the door for endless possibilities worldwide. Because of these innovations we get to explore new parts of the world, visit our favorite destinations, or meet with international colleagues and friends.

As someone who travels quite often, my own trips abroad have introduced me to people and exposed me to new issues and ideas. On some of these travels, I have witnessed how climate change has created new vulnerabilities in the agriculture sector because climate change is challenging farmers with increasingly unpredictable water supply and temperature extremes. I have met with farmers who are unable to grow food to feed their families because of the weather changes. I have met children who must stop going to school in order to spend time searching for water or helping to cultivate their families’ small farms. The impacts of climate change are devastating.

Few of us think about how much the very flights we take are actually contributing to the impacts of climate change. Yet, as the industry grows, their emissions may triple or quadruple in the next forty years.

In order to reduce the impact of airline travel on the environment, the European Union has created a law to cap carbon emissions from flights arriving to and departing from the EU. By selling a portion of pollution permits to airlines, the law also generates finance that can be used to help poor countries adapt to the impacts of climate change. This law – even as modest as it is – helps the airline industry to face the inevitable: when it comes to climate change, no one gets a free ride.

The EU law makes smart business sense. The Associated Press reported over Memorial Day weekend that fuel accounts for more than one-third of airline operating budgets this summer. Greener fleets and newer technologies like GPS systems to reduce flight paths exist and will reduce fuel costs, save money, and lower emissions – and airlines need to get serious about these steps now. The law requires that airlines reduce their emissions 3 percent below 2004-2006 levels by 2013 and 5 percent by 2020. Sooner or later the industry is going to have to face the challenge of lowering carbon emissions or consumers will face the consequences of climate impacts. Moreover, poor people in the United States and other countries will face the brunt of these impacts and yet have the least capacity to respond.

Sadly, instead of seizing an opportunity to develop further innovation in the airline industry, the Air Transportation Association of America (ATA), American Airlines, and United Airlines filed a lawsuit to exempt themselves from the law. The airlines are touting their environmental commitments while fighting measures to address climate change. Lawsuits, marketing and lobbyists will not make flight emissions go away.

The airlines aren’t the only entity fighting an opportunity; the Obama administration is too. Just recently the administration raised its strong objections to the EU law. This is unfortunate, as the EU law would actually help the United States meet its international climate commitments. Back in 2009, the U.S. government made a commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. It also made a commitment to work with other countries to mobilize $100 billion per year for climate action in developing countries. The EU law would help the United States meet its international commitments to reduce emissions and generate finance. Of course, regulating the airline industry is only part of the solution, but it is a start.

Airlines and the U.S. government have a responsibility to reduce emissions which cause climate change and to support poor countries and communities who are experiencing the impacts of climate change. If the airlines can figure out how to fly us across the world, surely they can figure out how to do it in a more environmentally and socially conscious manner.

  • Page 1 of 2
  • 1
  • 2
  • >