Numerologists believe that the numerical sequence 111 is a sign of a golden opportunity, a doorway opening up. It may be just a coincidence, but the proposed new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule for reducing emissions from existing power plants falls under section 111 (d) of the EPA's Clean Air Act.
Last week the EPA announced this new rule which establishes a national formula for reducing carbon pollution by 30 percent by 2030 and calls upon states to develop practical and affordable strategies to attain the goal.
Proponents say the rules present a golden opportunity for innovation throughout the clean energy sector. However, some in the choir of deniers greeted the announcement with dire predictions that this proposed regulation will kill the coal industry and ruin the economy.
The popular talking point by deniers is that this carbon requirement will cost consumers billions in higher utility bills as cheap base-load coal plants are decommissioned.
It is not the first time in our nation’s history that an industry has argued that a new regulation would be ruinous, leading to economic calamity.
The auto industry argued against seatbelts, catalytic converters and fuel efficiency standards. Industry interests protested regulations phasing out CFCs, leaded gasoline and retrofitting acid rain emitting smokestacks with scrubbers. The cigarette industry denied its product caused cancer.
The electric utility industry even argued against the Clean Air Act in 1974 saying it would result in electricity rationing.
As a result of these standards and regulations, our air is cleaner, automobiles are safer and more efficient, and the ecosystem is recovering in places impacted by acid rain without any of the economic instability predicted by naysayers.
Today, most coal plant retirements are being driven by market forces and will happen regardless of whether the EPA 111d rule is ever implemented. Besides having no pollution controls, these aging plants are inefficient and, more importantly, costly to operate. They are the power plant equivalent of a clunker and are being replaced by cheaper and cleaner alternatives.
Funny thing is, the American people agree that this is the right thing to do. A Washington Post poll found more than 70 percent agree that the federal government should regulate greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants.
Reality is a transition from coal to natural gas and renewables is already underway. This proposed rule encourages a trend that is already happening and builds upon what states and cities are already doing on the ground across the country.
The statutory provision causing the most heartburn though is the proposed targets or goals for each state. While the cumulative reduction goal is 30 percent for the country as a whole, the EPA has established a specific carbon intensity rate for each state and an equivalent reduction goal based on the carbon pollution from CO2 emissions by power plant in each state. States with a higher carbon intensity rate have to cut more emissions than states with lower carbon intensity rates. Despite the fact that the EPA has set the reduction target, each state has the final discretion of how they will meet the goal.
In other words, state rates are different from one another because each state is starting from a different place. Some states don’t have as far to go as other states because they are less reliant upon coal for their electricity generation.
The timeline to implementation includes a 120-day formal comment period to make sure the right rules are in place. The final rule will be issued this time next year. States will have one year from that point (until June 2016) to submit a 15-year plan that establishes standards of performance to meet the target. The plans will establish an interim goal by 2020 and put states on a glide path to accomplish the final goal by 2030.
It is unclear how much the final price tag will be because it is up to each state to develop an approach that allows them to take the most cost-effective path. States are afforded the ultimate flexibility to look at where investments are going in their state to take advantage of their own desires and policies.
If history repeats itself, just as it did in the automobile and industrial sectors in years past, these new standards will spark innovation and investment, in addition to providing new and better choices for consumers. It is a golden opportunity.
Jim Arwood
Communications Director
Arizona Solar Center
Comments? Please share your comments on this issue.
