=======================
2/13/14, "House panel taking up climate change measure," AP via Topeka Capital-Journal
"A Kansas House committee is weighing a resolution that urges Congress to resist following President Barack Obama’s plan for addressing climate change.
The nonbinding resolution is before the House Energy and Environment
Committee. It declares that the federal goals for addressing climate
change are based on false assumptions about the role of carbon dioxide
and human activity.
Environmentalists argue that the resolution is based on bad science and ignores data that emissions and humans are altering sea levels and weather patterns.
The resolution cites Obama’s 2013 plan that calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and encourages development of renewable forms of energy." via Free Rep.
==========================
1/8/14, "Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," US Federal Register
"I. General Information," "A. Executive Summary"
"3. Costs and Benefits"
"Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO 2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022. [2]"...
================================
EPA made same statement in Sept. 2013:
9/20/13, EPA text (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no notable effect on CO2 emissions:
Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register”
page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”
p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?”
“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022. The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.
p. 346, F. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?
As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)
.
Environmentalists argue that the resolution is based on bad science and ignores data that emissions and humans are altering sea levels and weather patterns.
The resolution cites Obama’s 2013 plan that calls for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and encourages development of renewable forms of energy." via Free Rep.
==========================
EPA stated the science on 1/8/14 and 9/20/13 in the Fed. Register that Obama proposed rules for power plants to reduce CO2 emissions will have negligible effect on CO2 emissions:
"I. General Information," "A. Executive Summary"
"3. Costs and Benefits"
"Therefore, based on the analysis presented in Chapter 5 of the RIA, the EPA projects that this proposed rule will result in negligible CO 2 emission changes, quantified benefits, and costs by 2022. [2]"...
================================
EPA made same statement in Sept. 2013:
9/20/13, EPA text (pp 343, 346) says its rule limiting CO2 emissions in new power plants will have no notable effect on CO2 emissions:
Sept. 20, 2013, Environmental Protection Agency, “Standards of Performance for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units Proposed Rule.” Submitted “for publication in the Federal Register”
page 343, “X. “Impacts of the Proposed Action”
p. 346, E. “What are the economic and employment impacts?”
“The EPA does not anticipate that this proposed rule will result in notable CO2 emission changes, energy impacts, monetized benefits, costs, or economic impacts by 2022. The owners of newly built electric generating units will likely choose technologies that meet these standards even in the absence of this proposal due to existing economic conditions as normal business practice. Likewise, the EPA believes this rule will not have any impacts on the price of electricity, employment or labor markets, or the U.S. economy.
p. 346, F. What are the benefits of the proposed standards?
As previously stated, the EPA does not anticipate that the power industry will incur compliance costs as a result of this proposal and we do not anticipate any notable CO2 emission changes resulting from the rule. Therefore, there are no direct monetized climate benefits in terms of CO2 emission reductions associated with this rulemaking. However, by clarifying that in the future, new coal-fired power plants will be required to meet a particular performance standard, this rulemaking reduces uncertainty and may enhance the prospects for new coal-fired generation and the deployment of CCS, and thereby promote energy diversity.” (end page 346)
.
No comments:
Post a Comment