redo Jump to...
print Print...
(by Valerie Volcovici, Reuters) WASHINGTON – The Obama administration on Friday announced regulations setting strict limits on the amount of carbon emissions that can be generated by any new U.S. power plant, which quickly drew a backlash from supporters of the coal industry and are certain to face legal challenges.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s [EPA’s] guidelines are expected to make it more difficult for new coal-fired power plants to be built.
The rules, a revision of a previous attempt by the EPA to create emissions standards for fossil fuel power plants, are the first step in President Barack Obama’s climate change package [intended to fight global warming, which he] announced in June.
Under the proposal, new large natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, while new small natural gas-fired turbines would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh.
New coal-fired units would need to meet a limit of 1,100 pounds of CO2 per MWh but would be given “operational flexibility” to achieve those levels, the agency said.
In a speech [Friday] EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy discussed the rationale behind new rules, and defended Obama’s climate plan, which opponents say amounts to a “war on coal.”
“There needs to be a certain pathway forward for coal to be successful,” McCarthy said, adding that “setting fair Clean Air Act standards does not cause the sky to fall.”
Still, stocks in coal mining companies such as Alpha Natural Resources Inc, Peabody Energy Corp and Arch Coal Inc fell on Friday and are down more than 25 percent for the year to date.
“Today’s announcement…is direct evidence that this Administration is trying to hold the coal industry to impossible standards,” said Senator Joe Manchin, a Democrat from the coal producing state of West Virginia.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million businesses, said the EPA’s strategies “will write off [eliminate] our huge, secure, affordable coal resources.” …
UNPROVEN TECHNOLOGY?
Under the new rules, any new coal plant built in the United States would need to install technology to capture its carbon [emissions], known as carbon capture and storage (CCS). That technology, which aims to prevent the release of large volumes of carbon into the atmosphere, is controversial because it is currently not yet operational on a commercial scale, an issue likely to be central to legal challenges to the EPA.
By giving coal plants seven years, rather than the 30 years proposed in 2012, to achieve an emissions rate below 1,100 lbs per MWh, the EPA is [is ignoring the fact that the] CCS technology [is not yet available to the coal plant companies].
The EPA previously issued a version of the rule last year but made changes to it to address potential legal weaknesses and to factor in over 2 million public comments.
The EPA will launch a fresh public comment period after Friday’s rules release.
It is due to issue a proposal to address emissions from existing power plants – which account for nearly a third of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions – by June 2014.
(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Editing by Ros Krasny, Eric Beech and Marguerita Choy)
Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission from Thomson Reuters. Visit the website at Reuters.com.
Questions
1. The first paragraph of a news article should answer the questions who, what, where and when. List the who, what, where and when of this news item. (NOTE: The remainder of a news article provides details on the why and/or how.)
2. What effect will the EPA’s new ruling have on the construction of new coal-fired power plants?
3. Why is President Obama imposing these requirements on coal power?
4. For what reasons are Democratic Senator Joe Manchin and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed to the EPA’s new regulations?
5. a) What is CCS?
b) Why will it be difficult for new coal plants to comply with the Obama Administration’s CCS regulation?
6. This is a controversial issue:
On one side are the people who believe burning fossil fuels: coal, oil, gas (which is what is done to generate electricity, and make many products we use everyday) is causing catastrophic global warming. They say the only way to stop the earth from warming and causing catastrophe for mankind is to end the use of fossil fuels.
On the other side are the people who do not believe that burning fossil fuels is causing a catastrophic global warming. They also say fossil fuels keep our electricity costs affordable, and ending their use will cause great economic strain on most families. They say coal is plentiful and affordable, and the current regulations we have in place to curb pollution are enough.
With which side do you agree? Explain your answer.
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): (Read more at epa.gov)
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an agency of the federal government charged with protecting human health and the environment, by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.
- The agency is led by its Administrator, who is appointed by the president and approved by Congress.
- The current administrator is Gina McCarthy.
- The EPA is not a Cabinet department, but the administrator is normally given cabinet rank.
- The agency has approximately 17,000 full-time employees. (from wikipedia)
- The yearly budget for the EPA is approximately $9 billion.
Global warming is an important issue to understand. The theory that man’s use of fossil fuels (burning coal, oil and gas for energy, which produces carbon dioxide, or CO2) is causing an imminent catastrophic change in the climate – global warming – is believed to be true by many scientists, climatologists, citizens, the mainstream media and Hollywood celebrities, and was made popular by former Vice President Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth.” People who believe in this theory say we must reduce the amount of carbon dioxide produced by limiting/reducing the amount of fossil fuels we use, or by purchasing offsets.
The belief that man’s activities are NOT causing an imminent catastrophic change in the climate is held by many other scientists (see MIT’s Professor of Meteorology Dr. Richard Lindzen’s commentary in Newsweek). This view is very unpopular in the media and widely condemned by those who believe man-made global warming is fact. See Newsweek magazine’s online presentation “The Global Warming Deniers.” Those who do not believe man is causing the global temperature to rise don’t believe it is necessary to reduce the production of CO2 by reducing our use of fossil fuels or to purchase carbon offsets.
- Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Some greenhouse gases occur naturally in the atmosphere [water vapor, which is the most abundant], while others result from human activities such as burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas. Greenhouse gases include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. (from wikipedia.org)
- Carbon offsetting involves paying others to remove or [contain] 100% of the carbon dioxide emitted from the atmosphere – for example by planting trees – or by funding ‘carbon projects’ that should lead to the prevention of future greenhouse gas emissions, or by buying carbon credits to remove (or ‘retire’) them through carbon trading. These practices are often used in parallel, together with energy conservation measures to minimize energy use. (from wikipedia.org)
Resources
How will the Obama Administration’s regulations against coal affect our electricity bills? Read an analysis at:
instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/09/20/epas-disingenuous-power-plant-regulation
Over 40% of U.S. electricity comes from coal. The United States has enough recoverable coal reserves to last at least another 250 years, with reserves that are over one-and-one-half times greater than our nearest competitor, Russia, and over twice that of China. America’s known reserves alone constitute 27% of the entire world’s coal supply.
Read more at: instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/coal
The head of EPA’s office of air and radiation during the George W. Bush Administration, Jeff Holmstead, responded to the EPA regulations on coal: “As a practical matter, this means that the new proposal will still stop any new coal-fired power plants for the foreseeable future. Given the cost of carbon capture and all the other problems associated with it, any rule that requires [it] will effectively prohibit the construction of new coal-fired plants.”
What is clear is that the Administration appears intent upon knocking out the most robust leg of the stool upon which U.S. electricity production stands. This will have wide-ranging effects on the price of electricity, the lives of those throughout the country whose jobs depend upon coal and the ancillary industries which have sustained our largest electricity source for decades. The United States has a larger percentage of the world’s proven reserves of coal than Saudi Arabia has of world proven reserves of oil. For the Obama Administration to “bankrupt the coal companies” as President Obama said in 2008 will have far-reaching consequences for our nation. (instituteforenergyresearch.org/2013/09/17/epa-proposed-rule-will-destroy-u-s-coal-industry)
Video – how a coal-fired power plant works:
Daily “Answers” emails are provided for Daily News Articles, Tuesday’s World Events and Friday’s News Quiz.
