Public Supports The EPA's New Rules For Power Plants

(This cartoon image is by Adam Zyglis in The Buffalo News.)

It has become obvious in the last few years that the Republicans will do nothing to stop global climate change (commonly called global warming). They have rejected science as a party, and were long ago bought and paid for by corporate America -- and those two facts combine to make up their total disregard for this country's environment (present and future). It has also become evident that they will use their majority in the House to block any environmental legislation proposed by the president or congressional Democrats.

President Obama has finally realized that he can no longer wait for this do-nothing Congress to act, and instructed the Environmental protection Agency (EPA) to do their job (and enact new tougher emissions rules) -- and last week the EPA did just that. They issued new rules for cleaning up power plant emissions in their Clean Power Plan -- a plan that will lower power plant emissions by 30% (over 2005 levels) by 2030.

This is not a plan that places an onerous burden on U.S. power plants. Each state is allowed to come up with its own plan for meeting the new goals, and the plants have 16 years to come into compliance. There is no legitimate reason why they should not be able to do that -- and do it without undue cost or loss of jobs.

Of course the national Chamber of Commerce (which never met a coal, oil, gas, or energy company it didn't love) immediately began to scream (and churn out propaganda about how this will devastate the nation's energy system). And they were joined by the coal industry (who knows that the dirtiest power plants in the country are coal burning plants).

But these entities are out-of-line -- and out-of-step with the wishes of the American population. Americans know that something must be done, and if Congress won't act, then the EPA must do so on its own. A whopping 70% of Americans say the federal government should require states to limit pollution due to the production of greenhouse gases from power plants. And 63% say this should be done even if it results in a $20 a month higher electric bill.

The survey also shows that the public is starting to come around and realize that global climate change is a problem that must be dealt with. About 57% of the public now sees global warming as a big problem for the United States.

The charts above were made from information contained in the latest ABC News /Washington Post Poll -- taken between May 29th and June 1st of a random national sample of 1,002 adults (with a margin of error of about 3.5 points).

A Small Bit Of Good News About Energy

The coal industry has been running some rather disingenuous television ads recently that tout "clean coal" energy. But anyone with even a small bit of knowledge about energy knows that there is no such thing as "clean coal". Coal is the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels, and when burned produces more particulate matter and other pollutants (including the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change). And while the newest coal-powered energy plants pollute less than older coal-powered plants, they still produce an unacceptable level of pollution.

But here in the United States, we have a huge supply of coal and it is very cheap. For that reason, the United States still produces a large amount of the electricity generated by burning coal (and both the coal and electric industries are spending tons of money to make sure that doesn't change). They put their corporate profits before both the public's health and the preservation of the environment.

But there is a little bit of good news on this front. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is reporting that the generation of electricity by burning coal is down this year. In the first quarter of 2011, about 44.6% of electricity generated was from the burning of coal. In the first Quarter of 2012, that has dropped to about 36%. That's a 19.3% drop in coal generation. It represents an 8.6% drop in coal generation's portion of total electric production (a figure that EIA expects to grow to about 14% by the end of 2012).

The major reason for this is the reduction in price for natural gas. The portion of total electric production done by burning natural gas has increased by nearly the amount coal generation has decreased. Natural gas is not a completely clean electricity producer, but it is much cleaner than coal and will result in less total pollution. Taking old coal plants off line and increased use of renewable sources of energy are also contributing to less coal generation. Here is how Think Progress sums up this situation:

The U.S. coal industry is facing major headwinds. The current drop in generation is mostly due to competition from natural gas. But there are other factors that will assist in pushing coal out of the electricity mix: An aging fleet of plants, cost-competitive renewables, new clean air regulations, and a strong anti-coal movement are working together to reduce the attractiveness of coal. Since 2010, plant operators have announced 106 retirements of coal facilities — representing 13 percent of the U.S. fleet, according to the Sierra Club.

The continued decline in domestic coal generation is good news for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Carbon dioxide emissions from the fossil fuel sector are expected to decline by almost 3 percent this year — continuing the 1.9 percent decrease seen in 2011. Emissions from natural gas will rise by 5.5 percent, while emissions from coal will fall by almost 12 percent.

Power Plants Are The Biggest "Global Warming" Polluters

Back during the Bush administration, this nation's power plants were excluded from many of the Environmental Protection Agency's pollution regulations. And even though auto pollution was significantly reduced and other industries had to clean up their act, there really wasn't much of a dent put into the pollution being released into the air -- especially as it relates to the pollutants that cause global climate change (commonly referred to as "global warming").

Even though Bush is no longer in power, the Republicans have continued their efforts to protect their buddies in the power production industry. Recently, they even tried to put an amendment on the payroll tax bill that would delay for another five years making the power plants abide by EPA regulations. Maybe they knew what the rest of us suspected -- that the power plants, especially those using coal, were producing far more than their share of the nation's pollution.

On Wednesday, the United States government released the most detailed report yet on just where most global warming pollution was coming from. And there was one industry that produced far more pollution than any other. According to the report, the power plants in America produce an amazing 72% of all the pollution reported to the EPA in 2010. Can you believe that? Only one industry, the power plants, produce nearly three-quarters of all the pollution causing global climate change.

It is time we stop letting the power producers off the hook, especially those who still use coal to fire their plants. And don't even talk to me about "clean coal" -- that is a myth created by the coal industry and simply does not exist. As a country, we must demand action from the power industry to clean up their act. And we must demand the government do more to help the nation move to clean and renewable sources of energy production.

The states with the dirtiest power plants are Georgia, Alabama, Indiana, West Virginia, Texas, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Wyoming, North Carolina, Kansas, and Kentucky.

It's Time For Texas To Stop The Pollution

Texas has a long and not-so-distinguished history of putting tons of pollution into the atsmosphere -- much more than any other state (and all but six countries). This has been going on for many years, especially since the Republicans took over the state government. Much of this pollution comes from coal-fired energy plants, and these plants (along with chemical plants and refineries) have been getting a free-pass form the state government in the form of "flexible permits" (which allow them to violate pollution standards).

During the Bush administration the White House made sure the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did nothing about the Texas pollution. But that is no longer the case. The EPA has taken over the issuance of permits for plants to stop the abuse of the so-called flexible permits. Now the EPA has gone further and demanded that Texas polluters (and those in 27 other states) clean up their act, because their pollution is crossing state borders and affecting the health and safety of people in other states.

This has upset Governor Perry and the Republican state leadership, who have been protecting the polluters for many years (and receiving campaign donations from those same polluters). They have not only objected to the new EPA rules and actions, but they have gone to court to stop them. These Republican leaders long ago sided with the corporate polluters, regardless of the environmental and health consequences of that pollution to the people of this country.

Now it has gotten so bad that even a conservative-oriented newspaper like the Dallas Morning News feels compelled to speak out. The paper has recently written an editorial (7/22/11) on the Texas pollution problem (and the lack of action by state leaders), and I find that I agree with the sentiments they express. Here is a part of that excellent editorial:

Texas should stop pretending EPA isn't serious

Texas' electricity grid operator issued a daunting warning when it said a tough Environmental Protection Agency rule on coal-plant emissions could spark power shortages and blackouts across the state.

Indeed, after a hard day at work, no one wants to return to a dark, sweltering house, or pay outrageously high electricity bills because power is in short supply. But it doesn't have to be that way. The Electric Reliability Council of Texas' warning creates a false choice that misses an important point, that Texas has plenty of alternatives - which it should get busy pursuing instead of pretending the EPA isn't serious about clean-air standards.

The false choice pits clean air against reliable power. Texas must have both, and can achieve both through a continued push to develop alternative energy, embrace forward-looking conservation policies, and reduce emissions from coal-fired power plants. The result would be fewer health problems from bad air, including premature deaths, and a stronger economic development tool. Plus, Texans would have the electricity needed to keep pace with a burgeoning population and economic growth.

The sad fact is that North Texas remains in violation of federal ozone standards, and after years of denial, Texas is among the least prepared to comply with the new rules. Fault for this rests squarely with state officials and coal-fired power plant operators who have tried repeatedly to delay the inevitable.

ERCOT, which is responsible for making sure the lights stay on statewide, says the Jan. 1 deadline for compliance with the EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule to reduce sulfur-dioxide emissions is "unreasonable." To avoid emission violations after the deadline, coal-fired power plant operators would limit or shut down generation to levels that might cause serious power outages statewide, ERCOT says.

That's short-sighted. Owners of coal-fired power plants and ERCOT have had plenty of advance warning about the new federal rules. Complaining about the timetable gives operators another excuse to put off what they must do. Moreover, Texas isn't being singled out. The EPA's rule applies to coal plants in 27 states, which, like Texas, also will have to make major emissions cuts. In Texas, for example, the rule would require an annual reduction of sulfur-dioxide emissions to 244,000 tons, or by 47 percent from 2010 levels.

In reality, the problem resides with a just a few plants, whose compliance would make a difference in air quality. In a recent Viewpoints column in this newspaper, Gina McCarthy, assistant administrator for the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation, noted that about 42 percent of emissions of soot-forming sulfur dioxide covered by the rule in Texas are produced at just three plants, which collectively account for only 13 percent of the state's electricity generation. McCarthy says that most operators will not face a heavy burden under this rule but that those not in compliance simply must step up and install the scrubbers and other technology to 

sharply reduce emissions as others have done.

We agree. It's time for Texas to stop complaining and start complying.

Alliance For A Clean Texas vs. TXU

A group of enviornmental organizations, known collectively as the Alliance for a Clean Texas [ACT], announced plans today to lobby the new Texas legislature to stop TXU and others from building up to 19 new coal-burning power plants. TXU is planning to build 11 of those plants.

TXU is trying to scare Texans by telling them the new plants must be built quickly, or Texas will suffer a shortage of electricity. Our governor, who has either been paid off or has fallen for the TXU propaganda gibberish, has "fast-tracked" the new coal-burning plants.

ACT wants the legislators to stop this fast-track process so a thorough study can be done on the pollution effects of the new plants. They believe a study will show the plants will increase pollution in Texas, including ground-level ozone. The DFW area is already having trouble meeting federal pollution regulations, and the new plants will only worsen the problem.

ACT believes Texas' energy needs can be met with solar and wind power combined with a more efficient use of our energy. TXU says this won't be sufficient to meet Texas' needs. I tend to believe ACT since their motivation is to clean up the air we all breath. TXU's motivation is bigger and bigger profits.

While I approve of ACT's program, I believe it ignores a couple of other clean energy options. Both of these options involve gasification.

A plant is being built near Stephenville that will turn cow patties into a clean-burning gas. There is no reason more plants of this type can't be built. Texas certainly has the raw material needed, and more is being produced every day.

The other option is the gasification of coal. We do have an abundance of coal in the United States, and the technology exists to turn this coal into a clean-burning gas. This would cost more than just burning straight coal, but it would result in a cleaner Texas for all of us. ACT is right that coal-fired plants would worsen Texas' pollution problems, but that doesn't mean that coal cannot be used in a cleaner way.

Wind and solar power and conservation may or may not be all we need, but if we combine these with gasification of coal and cow patties, I believe all of Texas future electric needs can be met without further polluting our air.

Business Leaders To Fight TXU's New Coal Plants

Things don't seem to be going all that well for TXU these days. They already had several enviornmental groups and several Texas mayors, including the mayors of Dallas and Houston, opposing their building of 11 new coal-powered plants. Now there is another group coming out in opposition to the coal-powered plants.

The Dallas Morning News tells us today, that a group composed of at least 20 of the most powerful business leaders in the North Texas area, have formed a PAC called Texas Business for Clean Air. The PAC was formed to oppose the building of TXU's 11 new coal-fired power plants, at least with the technology TXU is currently planning to use. These businessmen think that more pollution in an area that is already failing to meet EPA standards, could hurt economic development by boosting health care costs and making the area unattractive to workers.

David Litman, chief executive of Consumer Club Inc., said, "We are not against TXU. We are all for companies making money. But you've passed off some of your costs on the public in terms of dirty air, in terms of kids showing up at Children's Hospital. We think the plan TXU is proposing is irresponsible and is being crammed down our throats. We intend to lobby the legislature, and we intend to use whatever prestige and influence we have."

In the recent past, it has been easy for lawmakers, especially Republicans, to ignore activists and enviornmental groups. But this is a group they cannot ignore. These are powerful men. These are some of the men who fund political campaigns. They have access and will be at least listened to.

TXU needs to take another look at its current plan for the 11 new plants. There is better technology available. They would be better served to take the money they are spending on lobbyists and court costs, and invest it in cleaner technology for the new plants. Think of the good will and good public relations they could build by being a leader in the use of clean technology, rather than the polluter they are now perceived as being.

As Garrett Boone, chairman of The Container Store, said, "There's a myth out there that clean air and business are somehow at odds. This really is going to affect more than Texas. What TXU does could be a pattern nationwide."

Here are the leaders endorsing Texas Business for Clean Air:

Trammel S. Crow, founder, Crow Collection of Asian Art
Garrett Boone, chairman, The Container Store
David Litman, chief executive, Consumer Club Inc.
Wick Allison, publisher, D Magazine
Dick Bartlett, vice chairman, Mary Kay Inc.
Randy Best, chairman, Best & Associates
Stephen Butt, senior vice president, Central Market
Hal Brierley, chairman, Brierley & Partners
Edwin Cox, chairman, Edwin L. Cox Co.
Steve Durham, co-chairman, American Strategic Alliances
Roger Enrico, chairman, Dreamworks Animation
Howard Hallam, president, Ben E. Keith
Bill Hutchinson, chief executive, Dunhill Partners
Tom Lardner, Bright Sun
Aubrey McClendon, chairman, Chesapeake Energy Corp.
Liener Temerlin, Temerlin Consulting
Jay Wagley, managing director, CBRE Melody
Sam Wyly, founder, Ranger Capital