Power plant emissions

An editorial from the Late October 2013 North Woods Call

    Now that the Obama administration is moving ahead with the first federal carbon limits on the nation’s power companies, we’re wondering what “unintended consequences” this action might have for consumers.
     While limiting industrial emissions always seems like a good idea—even if one doesn’t fully subscribe to the theory of man-made climate change—it’s unclear how willing people are to pay more for their electricity.
     In a move to bypass the legislative process via executive action, the president authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to limit new gas-fired power plants to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per megawatt hour and new coal plants to 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide, administration officials said.  The average advanced coal plant is currently emitting about 1,800 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour, according to industry estimates.
     While environmental groups see the new rules as an important step in targeting the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the country, opponents fear it could raise utility rates, inhibit the production of reliable energy and wipe out jobs—particularly in coal-dependent states.
     Intense lobbying on both sides is expected in the coming months, as well as possible court challenges, before the new rules are supposed to be finalized in the fall of 2014.
     We applaud efforts to develop more sustainable energy supplies, but remain uncomfortable with end-runs around Congress and the absence of any comprehensive national energy policy that considers economic realities along with the environment.
     We’d prefer to see an open civic debate about these issues—one aimed at revealing all pertinent facts and finding the best, most affordable, solutions to our energy problems.
     Not only are American citizens currently embroiled in huge financial struggles—brought on, in part, by short-sighted government policies and bureaucratic rule-making—but we’re increasingly double-minded about resource management and conservation.
     We say that we want to reduce energy consumption and phase out the use of fossil fuels, while at the same time embracing technological and lifestyle choices that only increase our energy dependence.  We have, for example, a seemingly insatiable appetite for electronic appliances, games and gadgets, while simultaneously ignoring the energy resources needed to power them.
     It’s unclear whether there are even enough green energy options available to us to meet these—and other—demands.
     Isn’t it time we get serious about addressing these problems over the long-term and move beyond the temporary stop-gap measures that never quite seem to get the job done?