The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: greenhouse gas emissions
New Poll Finds Majority Of Americans Back President On Climate Change

New Poll Finds Majority Of Americans Back President On Climate Change

A new NBC/Wall Street Journalpoll released Wednesday is receiving widespread attention for showing a decline in President Obama’s approval rating, but another major result is flying under the radar: Americans overwhelmingly want to see action on climate change.

According to the poll, a whopping 61 percent of Americans say that either “immediate action” or “some action” must be taken on climate change. Just 13 percent feel no action should be taken. Another 24 percent think that additional research is necessary before acting.

The poll also shows that an overwhelming 67 percent “strongly” or “somewhat support” the EPA’s recently-announced regulations that would limit carbon emissions from existing power plants — 29 percent oppose it, and 19 percent strongly oppose it.

Many congressional Republicans have spoken out against the proposal, warning of its dire consequences for the U.S. economy. However, only 39 percent of Americans believe that federal regulations like the EPA proposal would result in job losses and force energy prices to rise. A 53 percent majority say the opposite, and also think that regulations are necessary for cleaner air and fewer natural disasters.

The increased support for climate change proposals demonstrates more than just widespread belief in climate change and the need to act to slow it; the numbers prove that Americans side with Democrats and the White House over Republicans on a subject that is gaining more traction under the Obama administration.

Considering that Republicans have already solidified their position on climate change, Democrats could use the issue to appeal to concerned voters. In fact, the NBC/WSJ poll finds that — as opposed to 2009, when only 48 percent of those surveyed were in favor of climate change proposals even if that meant higher utility bills — a greater 57 percent now support federal regulations that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, even if they have to pay more as a result. Only 39 percent say differently. If Democrats shift the discussion from climate change and the economy to climate change and health implications, they could turn the issue into one of their best weapons ahead of the elections.

Still, despite the poll’s findings — which are derived from surveying 1,000 adults across the nation — this will not be an easy task for all Democrats. Red-state candidates — especially in states like Louisiana and Kentucky, where the energy industry plays a major role in the economy — may still be quite vulnerable to attacks on the issue.

The poll was conducted June 11 through June 15 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

AFP Photo/Patrik Stollarz

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Analysis: EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule May Lay New Bet On Future Natural Gas Supplies

Analysis: EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule May Lay New Bet On Future Natural Gas Supplies

By Ralph Vartabedian, Los Angeles Times

The Obama administration’s ambitious plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. power plants 30 percent by 2030 is laying another big bet on future U.S. natural gas supplies.

The boom in U.S. production, the result of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling into shale formations, has sharply boosted the availability of gas since 2009, but the abundance has prompted multiple new claims to the resource.

The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing two new rules that will weigh heavily on U.S. coal-fired generating plants. The rule on reducing greenhouse gases will be difficult for many, if not all, of the U.S. coal plants to satisfy. And already a massive wave of retirements of coal-fired plants is occurring as the EPA’s rule on mercury and acid gases is implemented over the next year.

The U.S. will grow increasingly dependent on natural gas to make up the difference, even with the most ambitious efforts to control the growth of demand and promote more costly renewable power.

Throughout history, natural gas has been among the most volatile fuels available, owing to changes in demand but also to the difficulty of storing large amounts of it. If natural gas prices spike, as many U.S. experts worry, the growing dependence of the U.S. on the fuel for power plants will take electricity along on the ride.

After the fracking boom began producing large volumes of new gas, an over-abundance of the fuel drove down prices from $11.78 per thousand cubic feet in July 2008 to $2.04 in April 2012, according to the U.S. Energy Information Agency. Those are average monthly prices, and the daily spot market price swings were even higher.

Where did it go from 2012? That’s the worrisome news. The price has since rebounded to $4.61 in trading Monday. Even at the current price, the effect on electricity prices is noteworthy.

Last month, PJM, the operator of the grid from the East Coast all the way to Chicago, warned that in auctions for power supply contracts prices in some areas were doubling. And the California Independent System Operator, which operates the grid for all of the investor-owned utilities in the state, reported that last year spot market prices in the state shot up 31 percent.

The surge has caught savvy investor’s attention. The prices of utility shares and funds are rising, as investors sense the potential for profit spikes as the price of electricity increases.

Electricity and natural gas have become joined at the hip. Stanford University energy expert James Sweeny notes that a 33 percent increase in natural gas yields a 16 percent increase in the retail price of electricity.

“When those natural gas prices start going up again, we will feel it in the way of higher electricity prices,” Sweeny said.

Just how high power prices will go is difficult to say. Malcolm Johnson, a former Shell Oil gas executive who now teaches at the Oxford Princeton Program, a private energy training company, said prices could move toward European price levels of $10. Such a move would still make the U.S. a bargain against Asian prices of more than $20.

Is there room for concern? A number of U.S. experts say the government and industry are making multiple claims on the resource, potentially outstripping future growth. The Energy Department projects that U.S. natural gas supplies will double in coming decades, but that has triggered a lot of ambitious plans for its use.
U.S. companies have submitted plans to build more than 20 liquefied natural gas facilities along the coasts, a massive amount of export capacity. Meanwhile, the trucking industry is slowly converting its fleet to burn cheaper natural gas and is counting on U.S. heavy engine manufacturers to continue improving the efficiency of natural gas engines over traditional diesel.

But the big wild card may be electricity.

Natural gas will be needed not only to replace coal-fired generating plants but also to make up for almost every other type of fuel. The U.S. has retired five nuclear reactors since 2013, and the industry is considering even more shutdowns. The prolonged drought is reducing hydropower in much of the West. And even renewable power needs natural gas-fired plants as a backup resource.

Photo via Wikimedia Commons

EPA Unveils Far-Reaching Climate Plan Targeting Power Plants

EPA Unveils Far-Reaching Climate Plan Targeting Power Plants

By Evan Halper, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration Monday morning unveiled its far-reaching proposal to curb climate change by substantially restricting emissions at power plants, a plan that promises to set off intense debate across the country amid the president’s boldest action yet to reshape the energy landscape.

Under the proposal, the administration is seeking to reduce greenhouse gases by 30 percent from their 2005 level by the year 2030. The plan gives local officials wide leeway in how to go about meeting that goal, but it represents a major challenge for many of the states that remain heavily dependent on coal; some are already girding to fight the president on the proposed new rules.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s rollout of the 645-page plan launches a yearlong period of comment and review. The 2005 baseline year chosen by the administration reflects a time when emissions of greenhouse gases were at a peak. They have been reduced by about 10 percent since then, largely because many power companies have shifted toward cleaner-burning natural gas amid its recent boom. Meeting the EPA goal would require a further 17 percent reduction nationwide.

“This goal is achievable because innovations in the production, distribution and use of electricity are already making the power sector more efficient and sustainable while maintaining an affordable, reliable and diverse energy mix,” the preamble to the EPA plan states.

Still, many lawmakers and major business groups warn such a mandate would cause irreparable damage to the economy. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a staunch opponent of many initiatives to curb climate change, projects that the rule would cost the economy $50 billion annually, but the EPA concluded differently.

“The EPA projects that, in 2030, the significant reductions in the harmful carbon pollution and in other air pollution, to which this rule would lead, would result in net climate and health benefits of $48 billion to $82 billion,” the agency proposal says. “At the same time, coal and natural gas would remain the two leading sources of electricity generation in the U.S., with each providing more than 30 percent of the projected generation.”

Under the plan, states would be given a menu of options for meeting their specific targets, which will vary based on their current fuel mix. States that burn a lot of coal would begin their reductions from a higher emissions level than those that burn natural gas, which emits less carbon dioxide.

One way a state might go about meeting the target is by building higher-tech plants that capture greenhouse gases and divert them from the atmosphere, a costly endeavor that opponents of the president’s plan say is financially untenable on the scale the EPA is seeking. They could also choose to run fossil-fuel-fired plants less often, shift more operations to renewable energy sources or impose energy-efficiency programs that reduce the amount of power used, and thus emissions.

“Each state will have the flexibility to take steps to design a program to meet its goal in a manner that reflects its particular circumstances and energy and environmental policy objectives,” the proposal says. “Each state can do so alone or can collaborate with other states on multi-state plans that may provide additional opportunities for cost savings and flexibility.”

Power plants account for about a third of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Though there are multiple rules geared toward limiting the pollutants the plants release into the environment, according to the EPA, there are currently no federal caps on the carbon dioxide they emit.

Photo: Haglundc via Flickr

EPA Director Says Draft Greenhouse Rules Will Give States New Tools

EPA Director Says Draft Greenhouse Rules Will Give States New Tools

By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON — New draft rules limiting greenhouse gases from existing power plants will give states the tools to curtail emissions that drive climate change without shuttering lots of facilities and threatening electric reliability, said Gina McCarthy, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, at a panel discussion Monday in Washington.

“Nothing we do can threaten reliability,” McCarthy said at a conference hosted by the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington think tank, especially because “in a changing climate, it will be increasingly challenging to maintain a reliable energy supply.”

In a sweeping speech on climate change in June, President Barack Obama directed the EPA to develop rules to cut greenhouse gases from power plants, the single largest domestic source of heat-trapping emissions. The EPA proposed rules for new power plants in September.

But a rule for existing power plants is expected in June, and it poses profound challenges for the EPA and industry. Some states have power plants that do not emit greenhouse gases, such as the hydropower plants in Washington state. Far more states are still heavily reliant on coal-fired generation, such as Ohio and others in the Midwest, Plains and South.

Industry wants the flexibility to reduce emissions without shutting down plants, perhaps by offsetting carbon pollution through energy efficiency, building more renewable energy sites or planting forests. Environmentalists and public health advocates want carbon pollution cut. No one wants the lights to go out.

Looking relaxed as she fielded questions from a moderator and the audience, McCarthy was careful not to divulge details of the draft rule, which she said is undergoing review at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

Because of the vast reach of the rules on existing power plants, EPA staff members have held 300 meetings and gathered input from 10,000 people, McCarthy said, far more outreach than normally occurs before a rule is drafted. Reaching out to the states and industry, rather than retreating into “a huddle,” was part of the president’s mandate to the EPA, she said.

The discussions with state officials and industry, so far, have proven more constructive than confrontational, McCarthy said. “At the meetings, we didn’t spend time talking about the science of climate change or about climate denial,” she said. In Washington, McCarthy routinely hears from congressional Republicans that man-made climate change is not occurring.

“Many states are concerned that the climate is changing and they want to take action, but that action has to be flexible enough,” she said, so they can meet the new emissions standards.

Some in industry and coal-heavy states have feared that the rules for existing plants might resemble those proposed for new plants. The new plant rules set specific carbon dioxide emissions limits for natural gas and coal-fired plants.

To meet an emissions target, existing coal plants would have to be retrofitted with carbon-capture equipment, which would be prohibitively expensive in most cases. So, other measures to offset the coal plant emissions have been suggested by industry and environmentalists such as the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Each state might have its own way to meet a statewide or regionwide target of emissions cuts through a mix of more renewable energy sources, energy-efficiency and carbon-capture equipment on old plants. “If you can follow where the states are heading and underpin that with significant carbon reductions, then you have your answer,” McCarthy said.

She was careful, however, to point out that there were limits to the idea of flexibility. The existing power plant rule would have standards or targets that are “federally enforceable; that will be a requirement. They are not aspirational standards,” McCarthy said, which states can adopt “if everything else goes right.”

The rules “won’t be so flexible that I can’t rely on them as a federal standard that reduces carbon,” McCarthy said.

Photo: Matthew D. Wilson via Wikimedia Commons