energyfairness.org

President Begrudgingly Acknowledges Coal

Lance Brown — Wed, 16 May 2012 22:01:57 +0000

In a move that set social media abuzz late last week, President Obama changed his campaign’s website to include a reference to clean coal technology. According to a report from the Washington Times, “Under the heading ‘President’ Obama’s approach to energy independence,’ an entire section on the campaign website was altered from ‘fuel efficiency’ to ‘clean coal.’ The sections now appear as: oil, natural gas, clean coal, biofuels, wind, solar and nuclear.”

Earlier last week, the president’s language on energy issues came under fire from a number of members of Congress, including Rep. Ed Whitfield (KY) and Sen. Rob Portman (OH).

“This administration has been openly in the business of putting coal out of business,” Whitfield said. “And for the president to run around talking about an ‘all of the above’ energy policy, even on his campaign website, and to not mention coal as an important energy sector is unbelievable to me.”

Portman added that the president is “out of touch [with Ohio’s] needs.”

While an administration spokesperson countered that the president has consistently supported clean coal technology, recent EPA regulations such as Utility MACT, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), and greenhouse gas restrictions tell a different story. Such regulations have forced the closure of a number of coal-fired power plants and threaten to shutter dozens more, causing many to wonder when the president will deliver on his campaign promise to truly support an all-of-the-above approach to American energy. [Watch this video that chronicles the difference between the president’s campaign talk in 2008 and his administration’s current stance on coal-fired generation.]

“Adding a section to his campaign website is a feeble step toward putting all of America’s energy sources on the table, but it is certainly welcome,” said PACE Executive Director Lance Brown. “Unfortunately, words don’t keep America’s lights on and factories running.”

According to a recent report by ALEC, The Utility MACT rule alone could require retrofits at 753 power generating units, forcing the early retirement of up to 15 gigawatts of generation capacity at a cost of up to $170 billion to energy customers and the loss of more than one million U.S. jobs.

Report Gives ‘Hard Facts’ on American Energy

Lance Brown — Tue, 15 May 2012 00:03:41 +0000

In a national energy debate that lacks consensus about the best way forward, a new report seeks to create a factual platform for policy makers and the public. Recently, the Institute for Energy Research (IER) published Hard Facts: An Energy Primer, a 73-page report that defines key energy terms, presents basic facts about energy supply and demand, and clarifies commonly misunderstood information on topics such as emissions from the energy sector.

“Hard Facts is a report with great explanatory power for anyone interested in the future of energy in America, mainly because it provides a baseline of essential knowledge about where we’ve come from and where we are,” explains PACE Executive Lance Brown. “We believe that if policy makers use accurate data to decide our energy future, the choices could not be more clear.”

For example, the report points out that while coal-fired generation of electricity has increased by more than 180% since 1970, the so-called six “criteria pollutants” identified by the Environmental Protection Agency have fallen by 63%. Moreover, American GDP has increased by 204% during that time period. Taken collectively, the statistics shatter the common narrative that using America’s native fossil energy sources and creating economic growth comes at the cost of dirtier air. That notion is simply not supported by fact.

The report also creates context for American energy policy by pointing out that while CO2 emissions from the U.S. have actually fallen in the last decade, China has increased its output of CO2 by more than 167% during the same time period, becoming by far the biggest global contributor of greenhouse gases. This is likely to be news to members of the public who are often told that the U.S. is the world’s greatest climate offender.

“The environmental industry would have us believe that America must trade traditional sources of power for new ones, or else accept dirty air and water. That ‘going green’ is the only way to have both economic growth and environmental gains,” says Brown. “The irony is that the very system they rail against is the one that has been delivering on their core vision for the past forty years, all while keeping power prices affordable and energy supplies reliable.”

Click Here to Download the Full Report

Utility MACT Takes Effect

Lance Brown — Thu, 10 May 2012 02:04:56 +0000

The most expensive energy regulation in the history of the United States quietly took effect on April 16^th, as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Utility MACT rule, formally known as Mercury and Air Toxics Standards began its implementation phase. The formal implementation of Utility MACT starts the clock on a three-year compliance period mandated under the Clean Air Act.

Utility MACT will affect approximately 1,400 units at almost 600 power plants nationwide, including about 1,100 coal-fired units and some 300 that use oil. These units will be required to install technology to reduce emissions of mercury and other substances.

One of the EPA’s most unpopular rules, Utility MACT last year drew a legal challenge from attorneys general of twenty-five states and one territory (Guam), who argued that the rule’s compliance timelines were too short and that the rule could significantly harm the affordability and reliability of American power. Prior to the April 16^th implementation date for Utility MACT, a number of new groups filed suit against the EPA to challenge the rule. These groups include the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG), Colorado’s Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, and the American Public Power Association (APPA), according to a report by POWER Magazine.

Those affected by the rule are not the only ones upset. Late last month, a contingent of fourteen members of the House Energy & Commerce Committee sent a letter to the White House questioning the EPA’s refusal to answer the committee’s concerns over the cost of Utility MACT. Specifically, the members believe that the EPA is calculating only a fraction of the costs that the regulation poses.

“While EPA moves ahead with what could ultimately be the costliest energy regulation in American history, it is good to see that a number of groups and elected leaders continue to ask important questions about the cost and total impact of Utility MACT,” said PACE Executive Director Lance Brown.

TVA’s New Watts Bar Nuclear Unit Moves Ahead

Lance Brown — Mon, 07 May 2012 22:26:22 +0000

On April 26^th, the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority approved the continuation of construction of a second unit at the power provider’s Watts Bar Nuclear Plant. The project, originally approved by the Board in 2007, has experienced construction challenges that will delay its completion from a target date of 2013 until December of 2015. When complete, the new nuclear unit will put as much as 1,100 MW on the grid.

TVA officials told PACE that it became evident about nine months ago that the initial 2007 estimates on cost and time requirements for Watts Bar Unit 2 needed recalibrating. Not only were logistical construction issues disrupting the installment of the new nuclear unit [the latest unit is being installed next to an operating nuclear reactor], but initial cost estimates were also proving unreliable. In response, TVA leadership called on two independent groups to provide new estimates for the completion of Watts Bar, resulting in additional estimated costs somewhere between $1.5 billion and $2 billion. The new total cost of Watts Bar Unit 2 is expected to be about $4.2 billion.

TVA Chairman William Sansom put it bluntly in a written statement, “No one likes to miss the mark and that is what happened at Watts Bar Unit 2. We now know the original estimates in 2007 were incomplete and the execution was inadequate. I know; I was there.”

While construction delays and cost overruns are never welcome, there are some reasons to feel good about the developments at Watts Bar. First, the new unit will be among the first in the nation to come online since the Fukushima incident in Japan. The current delays mean that engineers and regulators have additional time to incorporate lessons from that disaster and ensure that best practices in nuclear unit construction are being utilized. Second, the delays will present no danger to TVA’s power supply, as demand for electricity has remained relatively stable in the current economic condition. The 1,100 MW provided by Watts Bar Unit 2 will be needed more in coming years than they are now. Finally, as we understand it, the cost overruns are likely to have little to no impact on power rates due to long-term financing of the additional costs.

Even with the additional costs, the truth is that Watts Bar Unit 2 will remain one of the most highly productive, least expensive power options for TVA planners when it comes online. That’s because nuclear plants, like coal and other fossil technology plants, are capable of running nearly all of the time and generating close to their nameplate capacity with little exception. Rain or shine. Day and night. It’s the kind of steady, on-demand power production that other competing energy sources can’t provide at any price. And as soon as the fuel is loaded at Watts Bar Unit 2, Bellefonte Nuclear Plant will begin its approved completion, eventually adding another 1,260 MW of nameplate capacity.

On May 5^th, Japan shut down the last of its fifty nuclear reactors. Germany is following the same path. PACE believes that taking energy options off of the table makes our nation less able to pursue the future it wants. For that reason, we support the TVA Board’s decision in the case of Watts Bar Unit 2 and look forward to the project’s completion.

PACE Blasts EPA Politics in Houston Chronicle

Lance Brown — Wed, 02 May 2012 22:46:36 +0000

The Houston Chronicle yesterday published an opinion piece from PACE entitled “Time for the EPA to Stop Putting Politics Before Facts.” An excerpt from that piece appears below.

It’s not too often that a government agency compares its own tactics to that of the ancient Romans – especially when it comes to the practice of crucifying several residents of a village in order to gain control over its entire population. Yet that is exactly how Environmental Protection Agency Regional Administrator Al Armendariz described his agency’s strategy of targeting oil and gas producers.

Armendariz, who resigned Monday, was the head of the Dallas-based region 6 offices, which is in charge of EPA oversight in Texas and surrounding states. In a discussion two years ago with colleagues that recently surfaced, Armendariz said, “The Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

Armendariz’s rhetoric is not only shocking, it clearly validates what the EPA’s critics have been saying all along about the agency’s attitude toward energy companies.

In fact, in 2009 Armendariz told his colleagues to “find people who are not compliant with the law and you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them.”

It’s time for the agency to stop invoking strategies of the Roman Empire and start working on policies that are appropriate for the 21st century.

Click here to read the full piece in the Houston Chronicle.

Energy & Commerce Leaders Press Administration for Utility MACT Costs

Lance Brown — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:55:35 +0000

According to a recent press release from leaders of the House Energy & Commerce Committee, the Obama Administration has yet to respond to requests for an official cost estimate for the Environmental Protection Agency’s new Utility MACT rule. Many, including PACE, have estimated the new rule to be the most expensive rule ever for the purpose of limiting emissions from the nation’s power sector.

On January 24^th of this year, fourteen members of the House Energy & Commerce led by Rep. Fred Upton (MI) sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking the agency to calculate the total cost of Utility MACT, as EPA’s initial project included “only a share of those costs assigned to three select years from costs that are amortized over 30 to 40 years.” Receiving no reply to their request, on February 22^nd, the same authors of the initial letter sent a follow-up letter to White House Chief of Staff Jacob Lew asking the president to force EPA to provide answers to their committee.

Having received no response to date from the Administration, Rep. Upton and others on his committee last week sent yet another letter on the issue, again to Mr. Lew, expressing their concern over the potential high costs of the Utility MACT rule. The letter also highlights the lack of response from EPA and the White House on the question of the rule’s true cost.

READ THE FULL STORY HERE

Energy & Commerce Leaders Press Administration for Utility MACT Costs

Lance Brown — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:53:12 +0000

The House Energy & Commerce is not the only committee that has shown interest in the potential effects of Utility MACT. In December of 2011, House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa (CA) demanded an EPA review of the Utility MACT rule’s impact on grid reliability.

“A cost estimate is critical not only for understanding the actual cost of the Utility MACT rule, but also for understanding the cumulative impact of EPA’s full suite of recent and pending regulations affecting the electricity sector,” the letter states. “These regulations include the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule finalized last year as well as other major power sector regulations that EPA has proposed and that will directly regulate existing power plants.”

PACE Visits With Tennessee Valley Leaders

Lance Brown — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:43:05 +0000

What energy challenges currently face the Tennessee Valley and how can lawmakers join in the national conversation on energy policy? Those were among the topics discussed yesterday in a presentation by PACE to members of the Tennessee Valley Caucus of the Alabama Legislature.

“Although much of our nation’s energy policy is being made by Congress and by regulatory agencies such as EPA, it is important that state lawmakers are aware and engaged in the dialogue on energy policy,” PACE Executive Lance Brown told the group. “These policies and regulations have a tremendous impact on families and businesses in the Tennessee Valley.”

PACE discussed current regulatory proposals such as Utility MACT, an EPA regulation that could affect coal-fired power plants across the nation, including those that serve north Alabama. Brown pointed out that the potential of accelerated closures of coal-fired plants caused by Utility MACT could mean that power providers in the Valley are forced to turn to other energy sources to replace the lost capacity, at a risk of higher costs to consumers. National studies have found that Utility MACT could shutter as much as 50,000 megawatts of capacity and cost as much as $300 billion nationwide.

PACE also discussed other EPA regulations such as the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Regulations for Utilities, and regulation of coal ash as hazardous waste. Among EPA’s proposal for regulating coal ash is to allow states the authority to determine how to best handle the substance, which is a natural byproduct of the coal combustion process. PACE supports delegating regulatory power over coal ash to the states, as the alternative – treating coal ash as hazardous waste – presents enormous logistical and financial challenges to the power sector.

Finally, PACE updated the caucus on current developments at TVA’s Watts Bar Nuclear Unit 2, which is currently under construction. When complete, the new unit will provide 1,100 megawatts of nameplate capacity to the Valley. The TVA Board is expected to meet today to discuss the status of the project, at which time PACE will report on the details.

What Are Your Six Words for EPA?

Lance Brown — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:14:06 +0000

As part of its effort to create dialogue with the American people on environmental issues, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently launched a project in conjunction with SMITH Magazine called Six Words for the Planet. The project, officially housed at this site, invites all citizens of the world to submit their own six-word essay describing their feelings about Earth.

“Healthier families, cleaner communities, stronger America,” writes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in her own six-word offering.

Catalyzing conversation about environmental topics is clearly a good thing for which EPA should be commended, but most people have concerns that go beyond the environment. Many have legitimate concerns about the national economy, our struggle to create and sustain quality jobs, and the affordability of energy for businesses and families. Those are concerns about which EPA needs to hear, especially since the agency is actively pursuing regulations and policies that have a tremendous impact on those issues.

That’s why PACE asked members of the public to submit their own six words for EPA. Here are some of our favorite responses.

Stop making rules. Just enforce them.
Healthy communities begin with quality jobs
Cleanest air, water in 100 years
Wanted: practical, logical, feasible environmental policies.
Full employment from science-based regulation
Balance of intelligent reason with stewardship
EPA should listen to power consumers

Submit your own six words by emailing lance@energyfairness.org

What Are Your Six Words For EPA?

Lance Brown — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 03:39:49 +0000

“Healthier families, cleaner communities, stronger America,” writes EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson in her own six-word offering.

That’s why PACE encourages you to write your own six-word essay to EPA. To do so, simply reply to this email or send a separate email to lance@energyfairness.org. We will publish our favorite responses on the PACE website.

Our own six-word response: “EPA should listen to power consumers.”