A proposed federal rule to reduce carbon pollution from existing
power plants - a signature initiative for the Obama administration - would not
only address climate change but protect public health, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency said in announcing it Monday.
But how Pennsylvania and New Jersey would meet that mandate is
still very much up in the air.
By 2030, the nation's power sector would, on average, have to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels. However, the
draft rule gives states individual goals and flexibility in how to achieve
them.
States could factor in efficiency upgrades at coal-fired power
plants, responsible for most of the carbon pollution from the power sector.
They also could encourage the growth of renewable energy sources and promote
energy efficiency in businesses and homes.
After a cursory read of the complex, 645-page rule, New Jersey
officials initially declared victory. They had already met the state's 2030
target, they said.
Then, they weren't so sure.
They began seeing inconsistencies and ambiguities in some of the
information the EPA provided. "It has some of our experts here
confounded," said Bob Marshall, assistant commissioner for sustainability
and green energy with the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Either way, he said, "New Jersey's got a good story to tell.
We have one of the cleanest power sectors in the country, and one of the lowest
carbon dioxide emission rates."
The Sierra Club's New Jersey chapter director, Jeff Tittel, said
the state can - and should - do more, especially given its vulnerability to
rising sea levels, stronger storms, and other effects of climate change.
A fact sheet on the EPA's website showed that New Jersey's 2012
emission rate was 932 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour of electricity
generated. The proposed target is 531 pounds.
Pennsylvania's 2012 rate was 1,540 pounds. The proposed target is
1,052.
Gov. Corbett expressed concerns that the new mandate - the latest
in a series of EPA actions to limit pollutants from coal-fired power plants -
would force plant closures and destroy jobs.
He said Pennsylvania is already doing its "fair share to
reduce carbon emissions, and we have made great strides in recent years."
Still, Jake Smeltz, president of the Electric Power Generation
Association, a Pennsylvania industry group, concluded from his initial read
that the rule appears "workable."
"The commonwealth will be in a position to write its plan and
take into consideration the things that are unique to our state," Smeltz
said.
Such as: Pennsylvania ranks fourth in the nation in coal
production and No. 2 in the production of electricity - mostly from coal,
although nuclear and natural gas are not far behind.
He said it was helpful that the EPA would allow "outside the
fence" compliance options - such as renewables and energy efficiency - to
take the pressure off coal-fired plants.
The time frame - giving states 15 years to fully comply - also is
a plus, he said. "It appears to take into consideration what we call the
natural life of a power plant," leading to a much more natural transition
of the energy landscape.
Exelon Corp., owner of several nuclear power plants in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey, said in a statement, "We are pleased that the
draft rule recognizes the critical importance of supporting the continued
operation of the nation's nuclear fleet."
Environmental leaders in both states said they hoped to see more
emphasis on renewable energy such as solar and wind, and more energy efficiency
efforts in homes and businesses, which would cut electricity bills, also.
However, they, too, cautioned that it's early in the game.
"We're all going to have to sift through a lot of materials, a lot of
briefings," said Joseph O. Minott, executive director of the Clean Air
Council, a Pennsylvania nonprofit.
He was critical of a state DEP white paper released in April that
included waste coal and waste-to-energy facilities among possible ways to meet
the state's target.
"It's not forward-thinking. It's not cutting-edge. It's not
job-creating," Minott said. "Every report that I have read suggests
that investments in energy efficiency and alternative energy are incredibly
cost-effective. They stimulate the economy. They create jobs that can't be
exported."
Promoting a menu of low-carbon sources of power will "allow
Pennsylvania and the regulated communities to reduce emissions and comply with
this rule in the most economically way possible," said Christina Simeone,
director of the energy center at PennFuture, a state environmental group.
Natural gas is viewed as a lower-carbon alternative, and already
some coal plants have announced plans to switch. But the reductions in carbon
emissions at the plants could be offset by emissions of methane, a more potent
greenhouse gas, at natural gas production and distribution facilities, she and
others said.
If that happens, "we will not win" the overall goal of
addressing climate change, Simeone said.
In advance of federal methane rules, "there's so much the
state can do to reduce this . . . and unleash the potential of natural gas to
be more of a solution rather than an unknown," she said.
The EPA is holding a 120-day public comment period, with hearings
in Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, and Washington. It plans to issue a final rule
by June 2015. State plans are due in June 2016.
In announcing the proposed rule, EPA administrator Gina McCarthy
said it would protect not only the environment but public health. The agency
estimates that as many as 6,600 premature deaths and 150,000 asthma attacks
could be avoided every year.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation.
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment