The upcoming greenhouse gas rules from the administration of US President Barack Obama are gaining acceptance from an unlikely quarter — power companies — and splitting the US energy industry’s normally unified opposition to new limits.
The proposed US regulations set for release on Monday next week would mandate deep cuts in greenhouse-gas pollution, while allowing smokestack emissions to be offset with enhancements elsewhere in the system, according to people familiar with the plan.
US power company executives, while cautioning that they are not privy to the plan’s details, greet the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) promise of a flexible approach with sentiments ranging from eager endorsement to grudging acceptance.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
“Our goal is to work with EPA to make sure the rule works,” Exelon Corp senior vice president Joe Dominguez said. “There needs to be a pathway toward meaningful reductions.”
For some power companies, the rules would help save nuclear reactors or boost investments in wind farms. Nuclear reactors emit few greenhouse gases, and companies with a fleet of reactors, such as Entergy Corp and Exelon, may benefit from a rule to cut carbon.
“We see a potential upside,” said Chuck Barlow, vice president of environmental strategy and policy for Entergy, which owns coal, natural gas and nuclear power plants, including the Indian Point facility north of New York City. “It would be an opportunity for our nuclear facilities.”
That view is not shared by US lobbyists for coal producers, such as Peabody Energy Corp, who call the EPA plan the latest salvo in a “war on coal” that would result in lost jobs and less reliable energy.
The willingness of power companies to embrace the agency’s effort could cleave the US business lobby and give Obama a chance to rally support. Eventually, US states will need to implement whatever the EPA proposes, and utilities could help head off coal producers and get state leaders to engage in the effort, supporters say.
Exelon chief executive Chris Crane said the rules will give his company a chance to go to state regulators and talk about how its nuclear fleet, which is suffering because of low electricity prices, could thrive.
“It will be in the states where these kinds of decisions are made,” he told reporters in Washington this month.
Xcel Energy Co has about half of its capacity in coal, followed closely by natural gas. Still, if the EPA gives credit for early action and sets reasonable targets, “we are confident we will do fine under the rule,” Xcel vice president for policy and strategy Frank Prager said in an interview.
“There is a very practical conversation happening, but that’s not to say everybody is going to end up in the same place,” former top US White House official for energy and environment Heather Zichal said.
The EPA’s approach would mandate 25 percent cuts, while giving states broad leeway in how to reduce emissions and endorsing a path that goes “beyond the fence line” of specific plants, according to people familiar with the plan.
The agency is contemplating a long phase-in for the steepest cuts, and the proposal is to include as many questions as answers for utilities and state officials, the people said.
What year the administration will choose as the baseline is not clear and could be a significant matter of dispute.
Power plants release more than 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide in the US a year, accounting for more than 40 percent of such emissions. Coal plants account for three-quarters of that total.
“There are a number of generators that are in a different position than the coal industry,” said Analysis Group in Boston senior adviser Sue Tierney, who wrote a report about complying with the rules.
Because demand for electricity has been largely flat, “there is a lot of underutilized, relatively clean generating capacity.”
Greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, the largest source, dropped 16 percent from 2005 to 2012, EPA data showed.
Lobbyists for coal producers, such as Peabody and related companies, met in private with US administration officials recently to warn against taking a broad approach, and said the EPA’s plan could result in an overreliance on natural gas, according to a presentation prepared for the meeting and provided to reporters.
The group outlined the impact of a plan that would mandate a 6 percent cut in emissions by 2020, and 25 percent reduction by 2030 from a baseline of last year. That could reduce coal use by 46 percent.
Overall, cuts of that magnitude could mean the premature closing of an additional 40 to 80 megawatts (MW) of coal-fired power generation and cost consumers up to US$17 billion a year, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity said in that meeting, according to the presentation.
“This whole rulemaking process is flawed, beginning with the fact that the Clean Air Act was never intended to be used to regulate carbon emissions from power plants,” group spokeswoman Laura Sheehan said.
Environmental groups are pushing for steep cuts. The Natural Resources Defense Council says the EPA’s rules could be set up to achieve a 30 percent reduction by 2020 if the agency allows efficiency gains and renewables to offset cuts in coal use.
The Clean Air Task Force, a separate environmental group, has a different plan that could achieve similar reductions by running natural gas plants more.
Power companies’ view of climate rules depends on the mix of fuels they use to generate electricity. Burning coal to generate electricity produces twice as much carbon dioxide as natural gas, so requirements that help owners of natural gas plants may hurt coal-dependent companies.
“The concern is that the potential regulation would eliminate coal as a source for generation and would also have an impact on natural gas,” said George Lewis, a spokesman for PPL Corp, an Allentown, Pennsylvania, company that owns about 12,000MW of coal-fired power plants. PPL wants flexibility in the rules, he said.
And representatives of local power suppliers, which can be more dependent on one plant and have less of an ability to swap one fuel for another, say the EPA rules are a poor way to handle changing regulation of the power sector.
“These are complicated markets; EPA has limited tools and we can’t just assume this will all work out in the end,” said Cliff Hamal, a consultant hired by the American Public Power Association to analyze the approach. The conclusions were Hamal’s, not the group’s.
Companies such as American Electric Power Co and Southern Co say they want to help shape the rules, not prevent them. Both companies’ emissions are down more than 20 percent since 2005, as they have agreed to shutter old coal plants and are burning more natural gas. Each company says the rules should account for those reductions and give states flexibility.
American Electric Power (AEP) also wants to be sure its coal plants will not be prematurely retired after the company invested hundreds of millions of US dollars to meet separate EPA rules on mercury pollution.
They “should not force the premature shutdown of existing, well-controlled coal-fueled power plants,” the company said in comments sent to the EPA outlining what it is seeking.
“Southern Company is committed to playing a leadership role in finding solutions that make technological, environmental and economic sense,” company spokesman Tim Leljedal said in an e-mail.
Former administration officials say one reason power companies and utilities are taking a constructive approach is their long history with the person charged with drafting them: EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.
As the EPA’s top air regulator, McCarthy rejigged the agency’s rule for mercury emissions from coal plants before it was released to account for specific requests from Southern and AEP.
Just this week, the agency released rules on fish kills at the water intakes used by nuclear and coal plants, rules that were deemed reasonable by industry and an abdication by environmentalists.
“They have a history of working through tough rules together with Gina and they know that at the end of the day, not everybody gets everything they want, but they get what they need,” Zichal said.
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a
Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) is to be Taiwan’s next representative to the US. Hsiao is well versed in international affairs and Taiwan-US relations. In her days as a student in the US, she was a member of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and served as chief executive of the Democratic Progressive Party’s US mission. She is familiar with a broad spectrum of Taiwanese affairs in the US. FAPA hopes that Hsiao, after taking up her new post, would continue to deepen and normalize relations between Taiwan and the US, and that she would try to get a free-trade agreement