Environment & Energy

xchrom

(108,903 posts) Mon Jun 2, 2014, 06:38 AM Jun 2014

Obama’s proposed power plant rules fall slightly short of environmentalists’ hopes

http://grist.org/climate-energy/obamas-proposed-power-plant-rules-fall-slightly-short-of-environmentalists-hopes/

?w=470&h=265&crop=1

Sunday afternoon is not the best time to break news. Monday morning is when the EPA’s proposed rules for greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants will be officially unveiled by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. But federal agencies leak like a sieve, and so we learned Sunday what the outlines of the rules will be: CO2 emissions from existing power plants will have to be cut by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.

Environmental activists are not overwhelmed with joy at the news, although they remain hopeful that the final rules will be significant. The target is a little weaker than they want, and they say the battle to strengthen the rules during the coming public comment period will be immense.

“It’s a good first step, and only the proposed rule,” says Tyson Slocum, director of Public Citizen’s energy program. “We’ll submit comments pushing for a stronger standard.”

The Natural Resources Defense Council agrees. “The key will be how they solicit comments on more ambitious targets,” says David Hawkins, NRDC’s director of climate programs. “We need an open mind on their part to consider evidence we can do better.”

3 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama’s proposed power plant rules fall slightly short of environmentalists’ hopes (Original Post) xchrom Jun 2014 OP

Good first step! Shivering Jemmy Jun 2014 #1

It's already down slightly more than 10% from the 2007 peak. Benton D Struckcheon Jun 2014 #2

So, states has some leeway to decide how defacto7 Jun 2014 #3

Shivering Jemmy

(900 posts)

1. Good first step!

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 07:56 AM

Jun 2014

Benton D Struckcheon

(2,347 posts)

2. It's already down slightly more than 10% from the 2007 peak.

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 12:36 PM

Jun 2014

Data can be found here, in Table 12.1: http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/#environment

That being the case, a 30% reduction by 2030 from 2005 is a pretty easy target. Just continuing on the current course of increasing the share of renewables in electric generation, combined with stricter MPG targets on cars or conversion of cars to electric simultaneously with converting electric to renewable generation should do it.
Will do it, actually. At this stage it would take an actual turn back from where we are now to stop the momentum already built up in renewable tech, and that is just not going to happen. Science-backed innovation is going to continue regardless. The incentive to break through in the next area needed, battery storage, is immense, given the demand for longer life and faster recharging in everything, from cell phones to cars. With that kind of incentive, it's just a matter of time before we see big improvements there, and once that's done, solar + storage is going to take off. People will do it as a matter of common sense, because in the event of a storm knocking out your power, if you have a fully-charged battery that can keep you going, reduced certainly, but still keep your fridge (and for some people, sump pump) if nothing else going, for a few days until the power comes back on, AND you can recharge it with solar panels on your roof, that's a big convenience in such a situation.

defacto7

(13,485 posts)

3. So, states has some leeway to decide how

Reply to xchrom (Original post)

Mon Jun 2, 2014, 11:52 PM

Jun 2014

and when and in my opinion whether they will comply.

Just how much leeway? Ambiguities almost always erase everything that's been said, no rule at all.

It's like the word "but" that negates everything said before it, "We have a deal on power plant rules but we don't have any power plant rules."

Keep thinking pretty, but.....

Reply to this discussion