Alternative Regulatory Actions for Climate Change

CCS DQA Editor’s Note: The following is cross-posted from OIRA Watch. We invite our readers to provide their substantive comments by using the Leave a Reply feature below the article.

OIRA Watch Editor’s Note: An OIRA Watch reader sent us the following essay discussing the Administration’s climate accord plans. We think the essay is worthy of publication and its policy proposal is worthy of public discussion. OIRA Watch invites our readers of all perspectives to substantively discuss the climate change essay on our CCS DQA Interactive Public Docket here.

Alternative Regulatory Actions for Climate Change

Kentucky faces challenging deadline to reduce carbon emissions, lawmakers told


By John Cheves

FRANKFORT — A draft of Kentucky’s response to proposed federal limits on carbon dioxide emissions won’t be available until next month, but the state plans to express concern about the limits’ economic impact, Energy and Environment Secretary Len Peters told state lawmakers Friday.

Kentucky will retire the majority of its aging coal-fired power plants in coming decades, making it essential that federal rules on “new sources” of carbon dioxide are reasonable, Peters told the legislature’s Special Subcommittee on Energy. Rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency rely on a technology — carbon capture and storage — that has not yet proven commercially viable at coal plants, he said.

Brookings Institution on CCS: “The technology is unproven.”

Editor’s Note: The complete Brookings Institution report, “The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies,” by Charles R. Frank, Jr., is available here. Below is an excerpt discussing carbon capture and storage.

From: Brookings Institution

Carbon capture and storage does not decrease environmental impact of coal power

From: The Conversation

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) doesn’t to decrease the negative environmental effects of coal power.

Researchers from National Technical University of Athens and Technische Universiat Berlin conducted analysis of the life cycle impact of coal and natural gas plants. They aggregated all individually calculated environmental impacts of each step of energy production in plants with and without a CCS program into a single Environmental impact of electricity number for each.

The large energy requirements needed for stripping flue gas, transporting and storing carbon dioxide and the processing of waste reduce efficiency signifficantly. It was found that the best way to decrease carbon emissions was to decrease fuel usage.

Coal industry testifies against EPA carbon rule

From: World Coal

The coal industry has offered its testimony on the impact of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed rule limiting carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants at a public hearing in Washington DC.

“EPA’s proposal is another step in this administration’s policies designed to eliminate low cost and reliable electricity and replace it with more expensive and less reliable sources,” said Hal Quinn, CEO of the National Mining Association. “By reducing the diversity of our nation’s electricity supply and raising its costs, [the] EPA will create a structural barrier for our economic recovery and future growth.”