EPA's sensible, market-oriented solution to reduce CO2

Status
Not open for further replies.

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
Guidelines from EPA (heavily coordinated with industry) to reduce CO2 seem to be working well in areas through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and in California with reduced emissions, improved energy efficiency, and lower utility bills without stagnating the local economies. http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits/success-stories

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-this-energy-executive-applauds-the-epa-2014-06-13

Why this energy executive applauds the EPA
Opinion: The agency has a practical solution to lowering greenhouse gases


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took a big step last week on the issue of climate change, proposing to slash carbon dioxide emissions at the nation’s power plants.

Under the rules, American electricity generators would have to reduce their CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030. Ordinarily, one might expect a utility executive such as me to be skeptical of this proposal. But I’m supportive. Why? I see this as a practical first move toward a meaningful curb on greenhouse gas emissions — a significant public good. And, from a business perspective, I see lower costs for consumers and great benefits for investors.

In announcing the plan, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said: “Climate change, fueled by carbon pollution, supercharges risks to our health, our economy, and our way of life. By leveraging cleaner energy sources and cutting energy waste, this plan will clean the air we breathe while helping slow climate change so we can have a safe and healthy future.”

While the plan is ambitious, I’m confident it can work without hobbling economic growth. The EPA has come forward with a sensible, market-oriented solution. The proposal urges the nation’s utilities and the states that regulate them to work together to contain carbon emissions. And it gives each a lot of flexibility.

For their part, power providers can cut CO2 by choosing from a host of options, such as encouraging greater efficiency; using more natural gas, an abundant and cleaner resource; adopting other energy-generation sources, such as solar, wind power, nuclear or hydro; or implementing other energy-management options.

Regulators, in turn, can tailor their standards to the electricity, economic and environmental needs of consumers; the EPA itself has provided a smart model, customizing its expectations for each state.

The principles behind the EPA’s proposal have already been put to the test in California and in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cooperative program in nine Northeastern states.

From 2005 to 2012, CO2 emissions from the power sector in the Northeast dropped more than 40%. We should celebrate this progress, as the region’s economy continued to grow, a fact that undercuts the frequent contention that action on climate change will necessarily cause economic stagnation. And, since RGGI was launched more than six years ago, the retail price of electricity in New England and New York has decreased — so business and residential customers weren’t penalized by environmental protection.

Frankly, we hope and expect to go even further than the EPA plan. National Grid distributes gas and electric power to more than 7 million large and small customers in New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and on Long Island, we generate nearly 4 gigawatts of power from 50 natural gas-fired generation units at four sites. From 1990 to 2013, we have lowered greenhouse-gas emissions by 65%, and we’ve set a target of an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050.

But the proposed rules aren’t simply the case of government intervening in an industry. The EPA recognizes, and has capitalized on, the market forces already at work. The agency has been in deep dialogue with the utility industry, and this proposal shows the EPA has listened.

There’s been massive shift in the energy industry in the past decade, caused in part by the growth in the production and use of natural gas. The amount of electricity generated by natural gas should double from 1990 to 2040, making natural gas the leading fuel for our nation’s power plants and the smart transition fuel as we move to even cleaner sources such as wind, solar, hydro and biogas.

In its proposal, the EPA acknowledges that energy efficiency and demand reduction are important tools we should aggressively develop along with a relentless pursuit of low carbon-generation resources. In any assessment, there is no silver bullet.

Still, the EPA’s progress is cause for optimism. While the new rules aren’t yet complete, they should go into effect in the middle of 2015, and states will have another year to implement them. They are a very good start toward advancing our global environmental health while recognizing our nation’s economic needs. In short, there’s a lot to like here for our customers, communities and local economies. Less carbon and cleaner air — our children will hopefully have cause to be thankful.
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I sold all of my Peabody Energy stock last week and took the loss. Now I could really give a fuck. Go ahead and destroy the coal industry, at least it isn't my money anymore.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
lol. Lower costs. LOL

I used less energy this year then last but my energy bill went up.

Why? NG gas fuel cost adjustment. The adjustment doubled the rate the energy companies thought gas would cost.


But we can all live in fantasy land.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
lol. Lower costs. LOL

I used less energy this year then last but my energy bill went up.

Why? NG gas fuel cost adjustment. The adjustment doubled the rate the energy companies thought gas would cost.


But we can all live in fantasy land.

NG demand has been increasing and will increase in the future regardless of the new EPA regs.

Increasing energy efficiency, and reducing energy demand through improved weatherization and insulation will reduce costs.

http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits/success-stories
RGGI reduces the amount of money Maine exports to buy oil and gas – currently around $5 billion per year – and recirculates those savings within our economy, creating a shared benefit in terms of spending and job creation. Maine’s gross state product (GSP) increases by $4 for every $1 invested in energy efficiency programs. To date, Maine’s GSP has grown by more than $100 million because of RGGI, and it is creating more than 1,000 job-years (e.g. 100 full-time jobs spread over 10 years.) RGGI is one example of how decreasing pollution and increasing clean energy can be accomplished while growing Maine’s economy.

...

Like all efficiency investment programs, RGGI funds reduce costs for everyone in Maine who pays an electric bill – not just the roughly 150,000 households and 3,000 businesses, to date, who have received direct benefits. By reducing demand for electricity, RGGI slightly reduces the price of electricity for all ratepayers.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
lol. Lower costs. LOL

I used less energy this year then last but my energy bill went up.

Why? NG gas fuel cost adjustment. The adjustment doubled the rate the energy companies thought gas would cost.


But we can all live in fantasy land.
Explain to us how your personal experience right now - prior to large-scale adoption by power producers of the various strategies to reduce C02 emissions pursuant to the new EPA regulations (which won't go into effect for another year) - is in any way relevant.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
NG demand has been increasing and will increase in the future regardless of the new EPA regs.

Increasing energy efficiency, and reducing energy demand through improved weatherization and insulation will reduce costs.

http://www.rggi.org/rggi_benefits/success-stories
Right-wing nut-jobs have difficult with the concept of effects being the product of multiple drivers.

For example, they'll say that climate changes naturally. Therefore (they'll claim) humans cannot be causing climate change and/or changes in human behavior cannot alter the course of climate change, completely overlooking the fact that natural and man-made drivers are additive.

So michal1980, pretty much the most consistently stupid poster on ATPN, is unable to understand that the underlying cost increase or decrease for fuels in independent of the marginal costs of producing electricity from those fuels, and it's the marginal costs that the EPA's new regulations will affect.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Right-wing nut-jobs have difficult with the concept of effects being the product of multiple drivers.

For example, they'll say that climate changes naturally. Therefore (they'll claim) humans cannot be causing climate change and/or changes in human behavior cannot alter the course of climate change, completely overlooking the fact that natural and man-made drivers are additive.

So michal1980, pretty much the most consistently stupid poster on ATPN, is unable to understand that the underlying cost increase or decrease for fuels in independent of the marginal costs of producing electricity from those fuels, and it's the marginal costs that the EPA's new regulations will affect.

Thats not fair. There are far worse people on P&N... :colbert:
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Explain to us how your personal experience right now - prior to large-scale adoption by power producers of the various strategies to reduce C02 emissions pursuant to the new EPA regulations (which won't go into effect for another year) - is in any way relevant.

no large scale use of NG will just make the problem worse.

You live in fantasy land, where we can have cleaner energy at a lower cost.

But if you know something the industry doesn't please start an energy company since you could make billions.

If the industry could have provided cleaner energy at a lower cost they would do so without government intervention since that would mean greater profits for them.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,613
11,256
136
no large scale use of NG will just make the problem worse.

You live in fantasy land, where we can have cleaner energy at a lower cost.

But if you know something the industry doesn't please start an energy company since you could make billions.

If the industry could have provided cleaner energy at a lower cost they would do so without government intervention since that would mean greater profits for them.

You are forgetting that fracking caused the bottom to fall out on NG prices. The large NG companies have now taking efforts to reduce supply to make prices return to a sustainable level. If demand goes up, supply can follow, at least for a while.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
53,359
47,773
136
no large scale use of NG will just make the problem worse.

You live in fantasy land, where we can have cleaner energy at a lower cost.

But if you know something the industry doesn't please start an energy company since you could make billions.

If the industry could have provided cleaner energy at a lower cost they would do so without government intervention since that would mean greater profits for them.

I have a hard time getting worked up about nailing the coffin lid closed on coal power. The industry has externalized enormous environmental and health costs running into the hundreds of billions annually in exchange for providing "cheap" power.

I'm good with using NG as a short term stepping stone to installation of adequate renewable energy supply and a resurgence in nuclear power.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
If the industry could have provided cleaner energy at a lower cost they would do so without government intervention since that would mean greater profits for them.

"Cleaner energy" does not have to be about the source of energy, but also includes the efficiency in its distribution, and reducing its need through better weatherization and insulation.

"power providers can cut CO2 by choosing from a host of options, such as encouraging greater efficiency; using more natural gas, an abundant and cleaner resource; adopting other energy-generation sources, such as solar, wind power, nuclear or hydro; or implementing other energy-management options"
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,125
10,435
136
I'll bet all credibility on this subject that global emissions will never drop below year 2000 levels. Not in our life times. You may be arguing that we can afford to do our part to reduce growth of emissions, but any real solution ultimately comes down to solar and nuclear power.

There is a LONG road ahead of us, to reduce CO2 and attain a stable, sustainable industry.
 

sunzt

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2003
3,076
3
81
I'll bet all credibility on this subject that global emissions will never drop below year 2000 levels. Not in our life times. You may be arguing that we can afford to do our part to reduce growth of emissions, but any real solution ultimately comes down to solar and nuclear power.

There is a LONG road ahead of us, to reduce CO2 and attain a stable, sustainable industry.

Definitely share a similar perspective, but even the longest journey begins with the first step.

It's also encouraging that China is getting serious with their CO2 reduction efforts as well.
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-ch...cap-for-first-time-government-adviser-2014-03
 

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,315
1,215
126
I'll bet all credibility on this subject that global emissions will never drop below year 2000 levels.

Within 10,000 years it is basically guaranteed to happen. The supply of fossil fuels is strictly a one time bonanza. I can't imagine that there are more than a few hundred years of it left in the ground.... 1,000 years at best. When fossil fuels do run out, emissions will drop far far far far far below 2000 levels. The production of energy will then take in as much carbon as it expels. This illustrates why we don't need regulations limiting fossil fuel consumption, there is already a hard limitation on their consumption.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.