9. (20 points) Non-Renewable Energy and Environmental Pollution. The Trump admin

Question

9. (20 points) Non-Renewable Energy and Environmental Pollution. The Trump administration is determined to eliminate the Clean Power Plan, a set of environmental regulations designed by the Obama administration. Please, read carefully the article below and answer the following questions.

OBAMA’S CLEAN POWER PLAN

Questions:

Outline Obama’s Clean power Plan.

Is it a radical plan or does it simply attempt to accelerate existing trends?

What are the existing trends in carbon emissions from power plants and coal generation?

What is the strength of these new rules with respect to State policies?

What are the political and legal threats to the Clean Power Plan?

In the second article Freeman and Koshnink indicate that “Many big players in the

electric power industry will gain more with the rule in place than if the courts strike it

down”. Explain how they can gain.

How are renewable energy technologies being encouraged?

The article by Freeman and Koshnick states: “Many power companies are fully prepared

to implement the rule. And they are well positioned to press their states to help them.”

According to the article, what type of measure and instruments could they adopt? Explain and feel free to expand.

New York Times | The Opinion Pages | EDITORIAL President Obama’s Tough, Achievable Climate Plan By THE EDITORIAL BOARD AUG. 3, 2015

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, announced on Monday (August 3,2015), is unquestionably the most important step the administration has taken in the fight against climate change.

It imposes the first nationwide limits on carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, the source of 31 percent of America’s total greenhouse gas emissions. It will shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants and give fresh momentum to carbon-free energy sources like wind and solar power, and possibly next-generation nuclear plants. And when taken together with the administration’s other initiatives, chiefly the fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks, it reinforces Mr. Obama’s credibility and leverage with other nations heading into the United Nations climate change conference in Paris in December.

The plan’s opponents in industry, the states and Congress are already gathering their forces to try to undermine it on Capitol Hill and in the courts, claiming that the plan will cost thousands of jobs, drive electricity prices through the roof and irreparably damage the economy. But the truth is this: There is nothing radical about it.

For more than a decade, carbon emissions from power plants have been declining — a result of a shift in energy generation from coal to cheap and abundant natural gas, regulation of other pollutants, like mercury, which has caused utilities to shut down older plants, and investments in cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.

Coal generation, which 10 years ago provided just over half the nation’s electricity, last year provided 39 percent. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power — driven by federal tax credits, improvements in technology and state mandates — have risen sharply in that time.

The new rules will codify and accelerate these trends, making sure that the shift to cleaner fuels continues quickly. Their main goal is a nationwide reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 32 percent by 2030, from a 2005 baseline.

Among their many selling points is flexibility: The rules assign each state a specific target for reducing carbon pollution from plants inside its borders, but allows them to develop custom- tailored plans for meeting these targets. States can choose from a menu of options to meet their targets: switching from coal to natural gas, ramping up wind and solar, reducing energy consumption with so-called demand-side efficiencies, engaging in cap-and-trade systems with other states.

These individual state targets are a result of many months of painstaking negotiations between Washington and the states. Despite this, the plan faces formidable challenges in Congress and the courts. Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, for instance, has begun a pre-emptive strike against the rules, urging states not to submit the required plans (a weirdly anti-states’ rights strategy, since the rules authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to impose its own plans on states that do not comply). But the greater threats lie in the courts, where opponents are preparing to argue that the plan usurps states' rights, exceeds the agency’s authority or is deficient in other ways.

And then there is the little matter of the coming presidential election. Even if the courts rule that the new regulations are fully consistent with the E.P.A.’s authority under the Clean Air Act, a future president could rescind or delay them. Hillary Rodham Clinton has said she supports the plan and will carry it out. Republicans are unanimously opposed.

Given the rules’ importance — to the country, to Mr. Obama’s negotiating leverage and, not least, to the planet — the politicians will bear watching.

A Climate Plan Businesses Can Like

By JODY FREEMAN and KATE KONSCHNIK AUG. 3, 2015

Jody Freeman is a professor at Harvard Law School, where Kate Konschnik is the policy director for the Environmental Law Program.

WITH the release of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a flood of legal challenges will begin. Already, opponents have denounced the new rule limiting carbon pollution as unconstitutional. Behind the rattling sabers, however, there’s a quieter story worth noticing. Many big players in the electric power industry will gain more with the rule in place than if the courts strike it down.

In fact, many power companies have worked with the administration to get the best possible deal, and with states to discuss compliance strategies. Given their financial interests, some of these utilities may even wind up helping the government defend the rule.

The plan sends a clear market signal that low-carbon energy will be profitable. Many of the country’s most powerful investor-owned utilities, including MidAmerican, Southern Company and Exelon, have made big investments in low carbon sources like wind, solar or nuclear power. Their decision to do so was driven by a mix of market opportunities, investor preferences, tax credits and state and federal air pollution standards.

In the last several years, utilities also have begun shifting away from coal toward cheaper natural gas. What they want now is a clear and predictable federal plan that will help them profit from these investments, and reward them for making more.

The president’s plan does just that. It limits carbon pollution at the nation’s oldest and dirtiest power plants and allows them to meet those limits in a variety of ways; for example, by becoming more efficient, operating less often or investing in cleaner energy sources.

Incentives in the plan will encourage the development of renewable energy. States can award credits to companies that buy or build renewable projects, and these companies can bank them even before the compliance period for meeting emissions limits begins. The federal government will match these state credits, which will help businesses comply with those limits. With these incentives, it pays to produce clean energy.

Any utility that already owns cleaner forms of energy, or hopes to build them, can profit — whether it is Southern Company constructing new nuclear reactors and steadily expanding its portfolio of renewables, or MidAmerican, a national leader in installed wind power that may look to expand its market.

Stand-alone solar and wind companies are expected to publicly back the plan because the demand for their renewable power will only increase.

In an era of flat electricity demand, utilities have been hard-pressed to get approval from state regulators to build new power projects. But the plan’s clean-energy incentives offer utilities the opportunity to make investments that will enable state utility commissions to justify rates so utilities can recover their costs.

What’s more, knowing there will be new demand for wind and solar energy will encourage investors to build new transmission lines. Meanwhile, utilities like Calpine, which own efficient natural gas plants, will be winners because the plan creates financial incentives to switch from coal to less-polluting gas.

Finally, utilities like Pacific Gas and Electric that design innovative ways to reduce energy demand, or offer energy retrofit and appliance rebate programs, also stand to gain, because energy efficiency now will be a valuable commodity.

Understanding these behind-the-scenes dynamics makes it clear that much of industry opposition to the rule is really just posturing. In any case, the legal jockeying is only part of the story.

Many power companies are fully prepared to implement the rule. And they are well positioned to press their states to help them, for instance by adopting statewide caps on carbon pollution, and allowing polluters to trade credits to let them cut emissions in the most economically efficient way. States could enlarge these markets to lower costs by joining regional trading schemes. Similar trading programs have already proved highly successful in addressing other pollution, like acid rain.

The question is whether some utilities will vocally support a rule that is in their financial interest, or remain on the sidelines. Clearly, it would bolster the government’s legal defense for major power companies to reinforce the argument that the new carbon standards are achievable at a reasonable cost without jeopardizing the electricity system’s reliability.

And just as it will be important to have supportive states on the government side to counter states that challenge the plan, it will also be crucial to have some industry players there. For conservative judges who may be skeptical of regulation, industry voices can make a big difference.

In any event, even companies that oppose the rule will continue to work quietly with the Environmental Protection Agency and the states on implementation. The legal challenges will drag on, and politicians will take their stands. The coal industry will say the sky is falling. But behind the scenes, real work is being done and progress is being made toward a lower carbon future.

Explanation / Answer

Answer: The plan’s opponents in industry, the states and Congress are already gathering their forces to try to undermine it on Capitol Hill and in the courts, claiming that the plan will cost thousands of jobs, drive electricity prices through the roof and irreparably damage the economy. But the truth is this: There is nothing radical about it.

For more than a decade, carbon emissions from power plants have been declining — a result of a shift in energy generation from coal to cheap and abundant natural gas, regulation of other pollutants, like mercury, which has caused utilities to shut down older plants, and investments in cleaner fuels and energy efficiency.

Coal generation, which 10 years ago provided just over half the nation’s electricity, last year provided 39 percent. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources like wind and solar power — driven by federal tax credits, improvements in technology and state mandates — have risen sharply in that time.

The strength of these new rules with respect to State policies is that the new rules will codify and accelerate these trends, making sure that the shift to cleaner fuels continues quickly. Their main goal is a nationwide reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 32 percent by 2030, from a 2005 baseline.

Among their many selling points is flexibility: The rules assign each state a specific target for reducing carbon pollution from plants inside its borders, but allows them to develop custom- tailored plans for meeting these targets. States can choose from a menu of options to meet their targets: switching from coal to natural gas, ramping up wind and solar, reducing energy consumption with so-called demand-side efficiencies, engaging in cap-and-trade systems with other states.

WITH the release of President Obama’s Clean Power Plan, a flood of legal challenges will begin. Already, opponents have denounced the new rule limiting carbon pollution as unconstitutional. Behind the rattling sabers, however, there’s a quieter story worth noticing.

Many big players in the electric power industry will gain more with the rule in place than if the courts strike it down.

In fact, many power companies have worked with the administration to get the best possible deal, and with states to discuss compliance strategies. Given their financial interests, some of these utilities may even wind up helping the government defend the rule.

The plan sends a clear market signal that low-carbon energy will be profitable. Many of the country’s most powerful investor-owned utilities, including MidAmerican, Southern Company and Exelon, have made big investments in low carbon sources like wind, solar or nuclear power. Their decision to do so was driven by a mix of market opportunities, investor preferences, tax credits and state and federal air pollution standards.

In the last several years, utilities also have begun shifting away from coal toward cheaper natural gas. What they want now is a clear and predictable federal plan that will help them profit from these investments, and reward them for making more.

The president’s plan does just that.

Incentives in the plan will encourage the development of renewable energy. States can award credits to companies that buy or build renewable projects, and these companies can bank them even before the compliance period for meeting emissions limits begins. The federal government will match these state credits, which will help businesses comply with those limits. With these incentives, it pays to produce clean energy.

Many power companies are fully prepared to implement the rule. And they are well positioned to press their states to help them, for instance by adopting statewide caps on carbon pollution, and allowing polluters to trade credits to let them cut emissions in the most economically efficient way. States could enlarge these markets to lower costs by joining regional trading schemes. Similar trading programs have already proved highly successful in addressing other pollution, like acid rain.

The question is whether some utilities will vocally support a rule that is in their financial interest, or remain on the sidelines. Clearly, it would bolster the government’s legal defense for major power companies to reinforce the argument that the new carbon standards are achievable at a reasonable cost without jeopardizing the electricity system’s reliability.

And just as it will be important to have supportive states on the government side to counter states that challenge the plan, it will also be crucial to have some industry players there. For conservative judges who may be skeptical of regulation, industry voices can make a big difference.

In any event, even companies that oppose the rule will continue to work quietly with the Environmental Protection Agency and the states on implementation. The legal challenges will drag on, and politicians will take their stands. The coal industry will say the sky is falling. But behind the scenes, real work is being done and progress is being made toward a lower carbon future.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse 9
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.