In this article the EPA warns that “average temperatures in the contiguous United States will rise 5 degrees to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (3-5 degrees Celsius)during this century.” Mostly due to “utilities and factories.” Now I read this article which says the EPA is going to ease enviromental controls on utilities? Am I crazy here? This seems hypocritical, dangerous and counter to the EPA’s mission. Can anyone defend this? I am disgusted.
Hey, the US is at war with terrorism, we don’t have time or money to waste on this environmentalist foolishness.
More guns, more bombs, KILL, KILL, KILL!!!
Plus you have to remember that both the President & Vice-President have been sucking big oil’s dick for years & years, and after 8 years of being hassled by Clinton’s EPA, (which actually wasn’t able to do all that much thanks to the Republicans in Congress) the EPA is now taking it’s usual place in the corner with the Dunce cap on it’s head.
C’mon, the head of the EPA is Christine Todd Whitman, Ms. “Hi, I was the former governer of the toxic waste dump otherwise known as the state of New Jersey.”
Ummm…yeah. Before we start going off on the usual Hate of Conservatives and sucking of dicks, and this becomes Yet Another SDMB Pile On Of the Evil Conservatives, how about discussing what the announcement actually means?
In a nutshell - plants break down. Power plants are huge facilities, and many of their components are one-off’s - constructed on-site, or else specially constructed for just the plant.
Now you may not know this, but the large majority of the power plants in the US are old. I commonly visit coal power plants that are 30,40, and even 50+ years old. These plants break down, and need repair, renovation, and replacement parts.
In many cases, there are no parts available, or machines available as direct replacements. So the plant now faces a decision. Let me give you an actual, honest-to-God scenario:
A plant needs a turbine overhaul, which is done every 8 years or so. However - when the turbine overhaul is done, the plant wanted to opt for high-efficiency low-pressure stages, which would result in an increase in plant efficiency of about 5% overall. This means that at it’s existing output of X MW (I’m not giving the real numbers, so I can keep confidentiality), they would use about 5% less fuel. And thus, pollute 5% less.
Who could be opposed to that? The EPA.
You see - because the boiler was oversized, the turbine was the limiting factor in the past. So now, the EPA says “since you can supply the steam needed for your turbine to make 110%*X MW, it is therefore likely that you will choose to operate it at that higher load point of 105% X that the new turbine blades will allow. Therefore, you now must fall under the provisions of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990, since you have added “new generation”, and now must also install about $80,000,000 of pollution control equipment along with your turbine upgrade - like a scrubber, and SCR, low-NOx burners, and anything else you might need.”
Note that the entire plant’s output must fall under these provisions, not just the differential output. I would hazard that most plants could accomodate the differential emissions quite easily, and most propose this to the EPA as a compromise. The EPA, however, tends to tell the plants to “get stuffed”.
Well, you can argue the side issue of ultimately what regulations should apply to whom, but think about this situation - the plant wants to become more efficient, is currently within the law and wants to stay that way, and wants to pollute less, but is not allowed to do so without a huge penalty that they cannot afford. And they are also not allowed to “promise” that they won’t go above the 100% X they originally were certified for.
The result? They chose the cheaper option for the low-pressure blades, and only gained a 1% or so efficiency increase (which was not enough to bother the EPA, since they were a little below the borderline of their original nameplate certification anyways).
See - everybody loses. This has been a problem for years and years, and I run into plants stuck in similar situations every quarter or so.
What are you missing here? Well, for one thing modifications to the definition of “routine maintenance” under the New Source Review program relate mostly to SOx, NOx and Particulates. I do not believe CO2 comes under this heading. So if you are concerned about global warming, look elsewhere.
Nice comment, Anthracite.
(Rhetorical) question for Conservative (Straw-woman) Anthracite: Ok, but why should owners of old plants have the right to emit oodles of pollutants while somebody who invests in a new plant is required to install umpteen gajillion dollars worth of pollution control equipment?
Let me make an assertion. When allocating emissions reductions, it is best to allocate them to …the emitters who can do the job at least cost.
Under the status quo, companies do not have to compensate the body public for the pollution that they spew. Instead, the EPA puts together a plan and decides which pollution control equipment has to be installed where. (Approximately, reality is more complicated). This is the “command and control” approach.
What’s the alternative? Well, the best scenario would be to charge the emitters for the damage that they do to the environment. Firms wishing to enhance profits will install pollution control equipment up to the point where extra equipment would cost more than would be saved in pollution fees.
Barring that, the 2nd best solution is tradeable emission credit system.
Real question for Anthracite (or anybody else): According to the NYT, the Bush administration’s proposed replacement to the Clean Air Act, (entitled Clear Skies), "require(s) a two-thirds reduction in most power plant emissions by 2018, and seek(s) to achieve that goal largely by creating a system in which companies can trade emissions credits. "
Trading emission credits: Love it. It provides a least-cost method of meeting a given target.
2/3 reduction by 2018: Um, here are my questions: 1) Those are actual emissions, not emissions divided by GDP, right? 2) Are the emissions reductions backloaded towards the end of the period? 3) Would any emission reductions occur in aggregate over, say, the next 3 years or so?
I like moves to more efficient regulation. I am wary of reform that in practice seeks to postpone pollution control to some conveniently later date.
They have a “legal right” in that that is the law of the land. As far as a moral right…well, I can’t argue that.
I posted this in more detail in another thread, but the reason that so many plants were exempted from the CAA Amendments was because of the enormous cost impact that would be incurred. And remember - in a regulated environment, 100% of that cost gets passed onto the consumer - right onto your utility bill.
The cost to have all power plants in the US all of a sudden have to meet the 1990 CAA deadlines would have been hellacious. So Congress decided (wisely, IMO) to attack a key target subgroup of plants. And so they did, and several tens of billions of dollars later, it has been highly successful at reducing emissions.
Now, the other plants should start falling under it as well. I, myself, believe that further legislation is needed to take the next steps, but that slow (but steady) progress is called for, so as not to upset the economy.
We already have such a system in place for SO[sub]2[/sub] allowances, and it has been somewhat successful. So it’s a decent model to follow.
Here are my answers:
- Actual.
- & 3) - I have all of the answers to these on a convenient sheet tacked up on my wall. However, I’ll be damned if I can remember them now. I apologize. :o
Okay, I must admit that this NSR [New Source Review] stuff is pretty complicated and I am sure that Anthracite has more firsthand knowledge of it than the rest of us, but…I will make a few points here from what I understand:
(1) The purpose of NSR is to run a compromise between “grandfathering” some old plants and encouraging the construction of new plants over the expansion of old ones since the new ones will be way-cleaner (because of better technology, possibly cleaner fuels, and stricter laws for the air pollution control equipment). I believe that the lion’s share of the pollutants are now emitted by a small fraction of plants…those which are “grandfathered”.
(2) Here’s a take on NSR from the National Resources Defense Council: http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/pbushcaa.asp. Note, for example, this point:
Here’s another piece from NRDC: http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/tdh0301.asp#how. Note that nearly everyone agrees there should be some reform to NSR but people disagree what the reforms ought to be. Apparently the new EPA proposals are kind of vague in many ways, but what is apparent is that the industry has won the day and it appears that the internal debates within the Bush Administration, between career people at EPA and more political folks at the White House, have been resolved largely (perhaps entirely) in favor of those in the White House.
I actually found the answer to my questions. This, btw, is the third time I’m posting this, after 2 computer crashes. :Bloody Homicidal Clown:
The answers are yes, yes and no.
This site provides factsheets on the Clear Skies initiative from the white house (98K) and the EPA (693K). The White House sheet proclaims that the plan, “Cuts power plant emissions of the three worst air pollutants – nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury – by 70 percent.”
It neglects to mention though that the reduction phase-in begins in 2008. For that, you must take a look at the larger 3 page EPA document. (Look under “Technical Information”). The W Bush admin apparently has great plans for their successors.
NSR is pretty complicated. It’s the sort of thing you get when you shift production decisions on to a central planner.
So flowbark, you are saying that existing regulations of CO2 emmissions for utilities will not be changed for the worse? If so, that is good news. Anthracite, it sounds as though they need to look at pollution vs. output in their formulas and relate that to what is acceptable. WSLer: I guess I am an idealist in wishing that this and all goverments were not so corrupt or influenced. Thanks everyone for responding.
Here is a link to ClearTheAir’s take on the Bush “Clear Skies” proposal, explaining why they think it falls short: http://cta.policy.net/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=22240&PROACTIVE_ID=cecfcfcdc7c6cbc8c6c5cecfcfcfc5cecfc7c8cec6c8c8c8cdc5cf (I recommend clicking on the link below the chart to get the full annotated version so you can read where they get their numbers from.)
As flowbark points out, the concept of emissions trading is a good one (especially if CO2 were included too!), but the real rub is in what the cap is set at. According to the above, the cap for NOx, SO2, and mercury under Clear Skies would be set higher in 2018 than would be achieved under current law by 2012. [The whole thing gets a little confusing because apparently the EPA “business as usual” scenario given at the time that the Clear Skies initiative was unveiled on 2/15/2002 differs markedly from what they gave to industry in an earlier presentation on 9/18/2001.]
With all due respect, they can say it is “false” all they want to - that doesn’t make it so, IME. About a quarter of my work in the last 4 years has been trying to help utilities which were fighting the Clinton EPA, and being stonewalled in every attempt to increase production. The EPA simply set conditions for acceptability for “enforceable committments” that were impossible to meet. Yes, I have actually worked for clients who, even though we proved they were going to emit less SO[sub]2[/sub], NO[sub]x[/sub], particulates, and even CO[sub]2[/sub] for that matter, still had their applications subjected to endless stonewalling and additional conditions that ended up killing the whole deal.
That’s not to say some haven’t been successful - Deseret Generation was able to upgrade their Westinghouse turbine for a significant power increase a couple of years ago. And PG&E’s Boardman station has been able to increase production dramatically as well. Also, I forgot that TVA has also been able to get around this somewhat (although I understand they had to sue the EPA to do it…).
However, most of the clients I work for have not been so lucky. Perhaps my sample size of experience is not so large as to be worth notice in this debate, but it is still the truth.
Satasha, no, I don’t think he is saying that because there are in fact no existing regulations on CO2 emissions at the moment. (I believe that Bush made, and has since broken, a campaign promise to implement such regulations.)
The easing of environmental controls that you read about has to do with emissions of SO2, NOx, and mercury pollutants. It is unrelated, or practically unrelated, to the global warming issue. So, while I agree with you that the Bush administration should be lambasted for doing nothing significant about global warming, this fact is unrelated to all this New Source Review stuff that you read about in that article. [At the time that Bush announced his Clear Skies proposal on 2/15/2002, he also announced his plan for dealing with greenhouse gas emissions…which was basically to implement a few voluntary measures and set an “ambitious yet achievable goal” for 2012 which would allow them to keep growing at almost exactly the same rate that they have been over the last decade or so (assuming that the economy continues to grow at the same rate, since he tied the emissions to economic growth).]
Thank you jshore for clearing that up for me. Wow, no CO2 regulations at all, how pathetic. I hope we don’t turn this planet into a Venus or Mars.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Christine Whitman – in a previous political career – fought against power companies who wanted looser clean-air requirements like the ones she’s now endorsing?
I’m not sure how to qualify her record, but you can click here if you want to read a short piece on her by ABC News which is very cleverly and subtly slanted against her in a way that is simple, IMO, dishonorable.
Taking an earlier quote from this thread:
Just like George Bush was not responsible for Global Warming, Ms. Whitman is not and was not responsible for New Jersey having a reputation for high levels of pollution. One might counter that being a governor of a State with both a real environmental and an image problem, like New Jersey, better qualifies her for the position. No offense to his position or person, but would one necessarily want the governor of Hawaii in that position, having perhaps not had to deal with the enormities of a State overrun by environmental woes?
Well, I happen to believe (as someone in that linked article says) that Whitman is not so bad on environmental issues…not so good either…But not nearly as horrendous as, say, G.W. and especially Cheney and the Secretary of Energy. The problem is that she is apparently losing most of the battles within this Administration.
I actually heard her interviewed on NPR on Thursday after the NSR regulations were released. She, as one would expect her to, totally defended the Administration’s line on this. But when they asked her if she is the one setting environmental policy in this Administration, she emphasized that this is not her job…It is Bush’s job to set the policy. As you know, several career people at EPA have resigned and gone public against the direction of the Administration on the environment (one who was interviewed right before Whitman on NPR); I wish that Whitman would have the guts to do so, as I think that would probably do more good than trying to work within a bad Administration as she is doing now. However, I guess this wouldn’t be good for her career (and maybe she honestly doesn’t feel that things are that bad…I don’t know).
So, Anthracite, I read that ABC News thing in full and I can’t figure out how you could possibly feel that it is “very cleverly and subtly slanted against her.” Care to elaborate? [Personally, I find the Whitman presented in that article to be way more sympathetic than the Whitman who I heard on NPR defending the Administration on Thursday.]
P.S.—If anybody is wondering how Whitman has been undercut in the current Administration, you only need to look at the public record (although I imagine it has happened even more behind the scenes). Remember back in March 2001 when she said something about how the Administration was considering regulations on CO2 emissions (I think it was that) only to be contradicted by the White House. And, more recently, in the last few weeks, Bush made his derisive comment about having “read the report released by the bureaucracy” (i.e., the report prepared by the EPA that concluded that climate change was a very real problem). Of course, I suppose one could consider it somewhat of a victory that the White House allowed this report to be released in this form in the first place.
The entire article, IMO, places her in the role as a token in the Bush Administration, which is, as ABC News reports, “under scrutiny as being full of Texas oilmen with a very laissez-faire attitude towards pollution and sprawl.” I don’t like them referring to her as a “novice” in the way they categorize her 1993 and 1997 election campaigns, and I don’t like the way they set her up as a person battling the Evil Conservative Christians, who only want to stick her someplace where she’ll be a Good Little Woman and won’t cause too much fuss and bother.
It’s my general impression from the article. You can argue how I shouldn’t have that impression, if you really want to go down that path today.
On a related note, I wonder how many Texas oilmen are on the Cabinet…or in the Bush Administration, since it is, after all, “under scrutiny as being full” (of them). I’m certain that ABC News will back this claim up, right? Or if they want to fall back on “Well, we only said ‘under scrutiny’ (without saying by who specifically, however) - we didn’t say it was actually full of them.”, well, that’s just plain being a weasel. It’s no better than saying that the Clinton Administration was “under scrutiny as being full of career criminal good-old-boys, with a very laissez-faire attitude towards law and order.”
Both statements are equally bad, and equally dishonorable to make. IMO.
And goddamnit, jshore, I’m not arguing that she hasn’t been undercut by Bush - she has been. I agree with you. But being undercut by a superior does not have to be a catastrophic thing. That was still, IIRC, relatively early in the Administration, when people were still trying to sort out their roles and procedures for policies. Unfortunately, Ms. Whitman, like other EPA Administrators before her, was not given the freedom that she deserved in setting environmental policy.
Well, in 1993 at least, Whitman was widely considered to be a political novice, IIRC. (After she successfully delivered a tax cut, people began to take notice, though.) Also, like it or not there is a small embattled so-called moderate wing of the Republican party which doesn’t necessarily get along too well with the Christian Right. (Our 2 party system forces a variety of bedfellows into each party.)
I don’t like the tone of the ABC piece either, but I don’t like the tone of most ABC reports. Too chirpy. (Nightline aside).
On to more salient matters:
Yeah, but there’s an important caveat. The SO2 trading program was designed to curb acid rain, a problem where emissions occur over a wide geographic area. Thus, you could set up a trading regime where there would be lots of buyers and sellers.
Such a scheme might also work well for CO2.
Problems arise if you are trading within a small air shed, where you have a few players trading NOx or whatever. Firstly, you have a thin market, where it may be difficult to arrange mutually beneficial trades. Secondly, if the players also compete in product markets, you produce an incentive for certain forms of gaming.
Strategy: hoard the pollution permits for the purposes of limiting the output of your competitors.
Now, maybe I am being too cautious. After all, we know that traders in newly invented commodity markets [sub]Enron[/sub] always comport themselves at the highest standards of ethical conduct: after all, they want to be in the game for the long haul[sub]never mind the stock options[/sub]. Even if there are abuses, any moron should be able to spot them, and we can trust our various regulator bodies (FERC, etc.) to take care of them expeditiously.
It’s a market; it has to work.
Irony aside, extending emissions trading into a thinly traded market covering a narrow air shed deserves closer scrutiny. (And remember, You Heard It Here First.)
*Yes, I have actually worked for clients who, even though we proved they were going to emit less SO2, NOx, particulates, and even CO2 for that matter, still had their applications subjected to endless stonewalling and additional conditions that ended up killing the whole deal. *
Why is this a surprise? Companies have an incentive to make minor changes to old plants indefinitely, to avoid making the big downpayment on a complicated system of pollution control equipment. So they make a set of baby steps every 5 years ago (say).
A rational regulator may turn down the odd 1 or 2% pollution reduction in order to encourage installation of the elaborate, um, eletrostatic precipitor - scrubber - pick your contraption.
Now, it’s been documented that EPA regulations promote outcomes that are far from the least-cost solution. But this is more or less inevitable, given the regulatory framework set up by the Clean Air Acts of 1990? (Bush) and 1972? (Nixon).
Response: In 1972 the environmental movement was rather suspicious of emissions taxes and the like. Answer: Ok, but this wasn’t the case (more or less) in 1990.
Nonetheless, thanks for pointing the above out.