Dear EarthTalk: I understand the Environmental Protection Agency recently took steps to limit pollution from power plants. What are the details?—Maddie Samberg, via e-mail

In March 2012 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first nationwide emission standards to limit carbon dioxide emissions from new coal- and gas-burning power plants. And while the operative word here is “new”—the standards would not apply to plants currently in operation or those that begin construction over the next year—they would effectively cut carbon emissions in half over the lifetime of a new power plant. According to the EPA, the standards reflect the ongoing trend in the power sector toward cleaner plants deploying the latest in American-made pollution minimizing technologies.

“The nation’s electricity comes from diverse and largely domestic energy sources, including fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro and, increasingly, renewable energy sources,” reports the EPA. “The proposed standard would not change this fact, and EPA put a focus on ensuring this standard provides a pathway forward for a range of important domestic resources, including coal with technologies that reduce carbon emissions.”

New plants could still choose to burn any fossil fuel to generate electricity as long as modern carbon reduction technologies are employed.

Environmentalists are cheering the EPA’s move given that power plants are the largest individual sources of carbon pollution in the U.S., responsible for some 40 percent of our overall greenhouse gas emissions. Despite this huge pollution burden, currently there are no uniform national limits on the amount of carbon pollution that future power plants will be able to emit.

“The Supreme Court has found in two landmark cases, Massachusetts v. EPA and American Electric Power v. Connecticut,that it is the EPA’s job under the Clean Air Act to protect the American people from dangerous carbon pollution, including the carbon pollution from the nation’s fleet of new and existing power plants,” reports David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), another leading environmental non-profit backing stronger pollution standards. “EPA’s ‘new source performance standard’ for new power plants...is a critical step towards providing that protection.”

Greens are optimistic that the proposal will become a rule. In concert with clean car standards the EPA announced in 2010—mobile sources contribute some 30 percent to our overall carbon emissions—the new power plant standards should help take a significant bite out of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution.

“These standards will help further the progress we are making towards a cleaner, more secure future for energy in America,” says Fred Krupp, president of the non-profit Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). “We will use our nation’ electricity resources more efficiently to cut energy costs for families and businesses, mobilize ‘Made in the USA’ technologies and fuels for cleaner energy generation, and ensure that America will lead the global race to a clean energy economy.”

CONTACTS: EPA “Carbon Pollution Standard for Power Plants,” epa.gov/carbonpollutionstandard; NRDC, www.nrdc.org; EDF, www.edf.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine ( www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

4 Comments

1. 1. Beetle 10:44 AM 8/10/12

   Nuclear plants are aging out without significant replacement plans, coal burning plants are being forced to shut there doors and we are being fed a constant myth of clean energy generation as if can supply immediate or medium term needs.
   
   The real cost of this has yet to hit the pocketbooks of the average American. When it happens, there will be consequences to those in power and the over reaching of the EPA.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sethdiyal 11:50 AM 8/10/12

   Unfortunately the EPA doesn't consider the 75 times CO2 effect of methane leaks - production through delivery - when extolling the virtues of gas power plants.
   
   When approving wind and solar projects it by political necessity omits the fact that these abortions have to be backed up to 100% nameplate with fast spooling low efficiency gas plant run inefficiently. Less gas, less carbon/ far less money, replacing the win/solar/inefficient gas backup scam with nukes or high efficiency gas.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. krohleder 12:31 PM 8/10/12

   For the sake of our health, and the future economy, it is a good thing we have the EPA. Otherwise a few dirty industries would hurt the rest of businesses with their mess.
   
   Wind and Solar have made leaps and bounds forward, and are already cheaper than coal/gas utilities in several states. All energy has had massive subsidies including fossil fuels. I think it is amazing that the clean energy revolution is requiring much less government support, in terms of time, than oil has had historically. As the age of oil winds down and we have to pay for the repercussions, with rising health costs and infrastructure inefficiencies, the clean energy revolution will bring a new economic boom.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. dwbd in reply to krohleder 08:30 PM 8/13/12

   Bull. Show me where Wind & solar are even anywhere close to the cost of Coal or Gas. Cut all Energy subsidies, replace them with the wisest Carbon Tax & Dividend plan of Jim Hansen, and Solar & Wind will die overnight. They are the first to whine & cry when any talk of reducing their INCREDIBLE subsidies is mentioned. Like 40-80 cents per kwh in Ontario. Japan offers minimum 26 cents per kwh for Wind and upwards of 53 cents per kwh for Solar. Germany's Solar is costing in excess of 50 cents per kwh. So Yeah, Oil, Gas, Coal and Nuclear have had subsidies in the past, but at rates of a penny or two a kwh, not 50 cents a kwh.
   
   And there is NO ENERGY source that has ever enjoyed the INCREDIBLE, despicable, devious and cowardly subsidy called Renewable Portfolio Standards. Why does mainly Wind & Solar get that MASSIVE subsidy that no other Energy Source has EVER gotten.
   
   Put your money where your mouth is dude, and call for ZERO Energy subsidies, and see your Wind & Solar die a quick death. Oil, Gas, Coal and Nuclear will be UNAFFECTED.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this