TWiGL

climateadaptation:

WIN. 

envirolutionary:

Yep.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) today announced an agreement to jointly enforce U.S. and international air pollution requirements for vessels operating in U.S. waters. The requirements establish limits on nitrogen oxides (NO_x) emissions and require the use of fuel with lower sulfur content, protecting people’s health and the environment by reducing ozone-producing pollution, which can cause smog and aggravate asthma. The most stringent requirements apply to ships operating within 200 nautical miles of the coast of North America.

“Today’s agreement forges a strong partnership between EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard, advancing our shared commitment to enforce air emissions standards for ships operating in U.S. waters,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Reducing harmful air pollution is a priority for EPA and by working with the Coast Guard we will ensure that the ships moving through our waters meet their environmental obligations, protecting our nation’s air quality and the health of our coastal communities.”

“This agreement demonstrates the Coast Guard’s long-standing commitment to protecting our nation’s marine environment,” said Rear Adm. Kevin Cook, director of Prevention Policy for the U.S. Coast Guard. “Aligning our capabilities with EPA enhances our commitment to the marine environment while minimizing the impact on shipping.”

The large marine diesel engines that provide propulsion and auxiliary power on many ocean-going vessels emit significant amounts of pollution. Without further action, EPA estimates that by 2030, NO_x emissions from ships will more than double, growing to 2.1 million tons per year. The memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by EPA and the USCG outlines the agencies’ commitment to jointly enforce federal and international laws that EPA projects could prevent 12,000-31,000 premature deaths annually by 2030. Under the MOU, both the USCG and EPA will perform inspections and investigations, and will take appropriate enforcement actions if a violation is detected.

This is a pretty big deal. Cement production is a huge area of possible greenhouse gas reductions.

A new study shows that the price of coal power would nearly triple if power companies factored in the hidden health and environmental costs.  

The study details the economic, health and environmental costs associated with each stage in the life cycle of coal – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion.  These costs, between a third to over half a trillion dollars annually, are directly passed on to the public.

This type of life cycle analysis is the future of the energy industry, it just may take awhile.  Fascinating discussion on the study at Climate Progress.

envirolutionary:

It has already started in Colorado… we shall wait and see. I am glad to see the EPA has a new regulative arm with the Obama Administration… maybe something good will come out of the democrats “Iconic” figure. 

Congressional Republicans are going after Obama’s EPA with both barrels blazing. Everyone who pays attention to politics knows that by now. What is somewhat less widely understood is why.

Here’s what’s at stake: new and emerging EPA regulations are going to force a huge wave of coal-plant retirements.

I’ve written quite a bit about this if you want background. The regulations will ratchet down standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and other toxics, possibly restrict coal ash for the first time, and possibly require cooling towers (so that wastewater discharge doesn’t fry river and stream ecosystems). Oh, and there’s also those pending greenhouse gas rules, though their influence will be somewhat less in the short term.

A couple of new reports have filled out more details on these coal-plant closures. I’ll take a closer look at one of them, but first it’s important to note that this isn’t some theoretical, years-out possibility. It’s already underway. Here’s a sampling of recent headlines:

• The New York Times: “Utilities shift to gas-based plants as alternative to coal”
• Wall Street Journal: “Utilities are increasingly looking to natural gas to generate electricity”
• Financial Times: “Wave of closures set to hit U.S. coal stations”
• Denver Daily News: “PUC approves retiring Denver-area coal-fired plants, switching to natural gas”
• Reuters: “Xcel to shut or convert Colorado coal power plants”
• Chattanooga Times Free Press: “TVA to shutter coal plants, turn to nuclear”
• Times Daily: “TVA to idle coal plants to cut emission output”
• Charlotte Observer: “Duke considers closing old coal plants”

I could go on.

Two new reports investigate just how big the wave of closures will be. One is from the investment bank FBR Capital Markets, which Reuters covers today. Another is from consultancy The Brattle Group. So as not to overwhelm with wonk, I’ll restrict my focus to the latter.

Brattle’s report digs into the upgrade-or-retire decision every coal plant in the U.S. will soon face, using a “retirement screening tool,” and concludes that …

… emerging EPA regulations on air quality and water for coal-fired power plants could result in over 50,000 MW of coal plant retirements and require an investment of up to $180 billion for remaining plants to comply with the likely mandates.

Both those numbers go up substantially — retirements by 11-12 GW and needed investment by $30-50 billion — if EPA requires cooling towers in addition to smokestack scrubbers. (This is consistent with the FBR Capital Markets report, which finds a total of up to 70,000 MW of coal on the line.)

By 2020, the authors say, coal plant closures will reduce coal demand by about 15 percent, increase natural gas demand by about 10 percent, and (assuming the coal is replaced by gas) reduce CO2 emissions by 150 million tons.

Those are the top line conclusions. Here are a few other interesting aspects:

The oldest and dirtiest coal plants face the most risk, but not just the oldest and dirtiest. In fact, the study finds that about a third of the closures will be plants under 40 years old and larger than 500 MW.

Almost all the retirements will take place at merchant coal plants, which sell power into competitive wholesale markets, rather than at regulated-utility plants, which sell power to retail customers. As a consequence, the effects will be concentrated in the Southeast (SERC), the mid-Atlantic (RFC), and Texas (ERCOT). Here’s a map: