EPA seeks to cut coal emissions by 30% by 2030

[[Something Cool]]

EPA to Seek 30% Cut in Emissions at Power Plants - WSJ.com

The Environmental Protection Agency will propose mandating power plants cut U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions 30% by 2030 from levels of 25 years earlier, according to people briefed on the rule, an ambitious target that marks the first-ever attempt at limiting such pollution.

The rule-making proposal, to be unveiled Monday, sets in motion the main piece of President Barack Obama's climate-change agenda and is designed to give states and power companies flexibility in reaching the target. But it also will face political resistance and become fodder in midterm congressional races, particularly in energy-producing states, and is destined to trigger lawsuits from states and industry that oppose it.

The rule would affect hundreds of fossil-fuel power plants--hitting the nation's roughly 600 coal-fired plants the hardest. The carbon framework seeks to strike a balance between what environmentalists want--an ambitious overall target--with what the utility industry wants--flexibility, a long compliance timeline and an earlier base-year calculation from which to meet the goal. Carbon emissions have dropped since 2005, making the overall reduction smaller when compared with recent years.

For the president, the rule is a major element of his attempt to secure a second-term legacy. While Mr. Obama is expected to remain out of the spotlight when the EPA unveils the rule Monday, he plans to join a conference call with the American Lung Association, casting the rule as needed to protect public health as well as to reduce the carbon emissions that scientists say contribute to climate change.

The rule, scheduled to be completed a year from now, will give flexibility to the states, which must implement them and submit compliance plans to the EPA by June 2016. States can decide how to meet the reductions, including joining or creating new cap-and-trade programs--which allow companies to trade allowances or credits for emissions--deploying more renewable energy or ramping up energy-efficiency technologies.

Each state will have different reduction standards, and the national average will be 25% by 2020 and 30% by 2030, people familiar with the proposal said. Additional details about the rule, including the percentage reduction for each state, and other particulars on how it would work, weren't available.

...

The rule gives states and companies as many as 15 years to comply, which is more time than some environmental groups had wanted, and a base year favored by utility companies.

Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, praised the proposal. "The new carbon pollution standards will be good for our health, good for our economy and good for our children and all future generations," Ms. Beinecke said in a statement. "Time is running out, but today the president is reminding us that we have the solutions."

"As President, and as a parent, I refuse to condemn our children to a planet that's beyond fixing," Mr. Obama said in his radio address Saturday, recorded at a children's hospital in Washington. "The shift to a cleaner energy economy won't happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But a low-carbon, clean energy economy can be an engine of growth for decades to come."

The proposal is already an explosive point of debate in some Senate and House midterm races, particularly in some energy-producing states where Democrats are vulnerable. Rep. Nick Rahall (D., W.Va.), who is seeking re-election, said he didn't think the rule's impact on coal-state Democrats is the White House's top priority.

"I'm sure that's not No. 1 in their minds. Probably, the president's legacy is No. 1," said Mr. Rahall, who opposes additional restrictions on coal plants.

Republicans are using the proposed rule to assert that Democrats will raise energy costs and kill jobs, and that carbon restrictions are futile in the absence of similar action by China and other large polluting nations. Many Republicans are linking the rule to other Obama administration actions that they view as overly intrusive in the economy.

A pretty ambitious goal which will obviously be met by large political resistance. I don't believe that domestic pollution limitations will matter greatly if China doesn't get on board as well. However, I do think that its important that the U.S. be at the forefront of climate change policy and alternative energy production, so this is a huge step in the right direction. It would be difficult to advise/pressure China (and the rest of the industrialized world) without first taking necessary steps ourselves.

What ya'll think? Is this a good look for the U.S? Or is this a job killing bill that will only hurt America.....or is it too little too late

 

[tmonster]

not good enough