I want to talk about the Clean Power Plan
and more specifically what it means for Wisconsin. The Clean Power Plan (CPP)
was announced by President Obama, August 3rd 2015. The CPP is aimed
at power plants to reduce their carbon emissions. Nationally it would seek to cut
carbon dioxide emissions from 2005 benchmarks by 32% by 2030. It requires
states to meet specific emission reduction marks based on the state’s overall
energy consumption, and the amount of natural gas and coal power plants, with
the heaviest cuts coming to the coal reliant states. The plan would set “building
blocks” for achieving the necessary emission cuts. These “building blocks”
include increasing use of renewable energy, increasing the efficiency of coal
and gas burning plants, and moving away from coal plants to less carbon
emitting natural gas. Some of these shifts are already taking place, the CPP
seeks to set required levels and seeks to hasten the pace. It also offers a Clean Energy Incentive
Program, which would promote “early development of renewable energy and energy
efficiency.” This program seeks to reward states for investing in renewable
rather that making coal more efficient or switching over to natural gas to
reduce carbon emissions. There is hope that the CPP will show the UN during the
COP in Paris this December, that the U.S. is committed to cutting its national
emissions, and that other countries would do the same. The CPP is a form of hierarchical
mode of government, which is passed by President Obama, and regulated through
the EPA.
What does this mean for Wisconsin?
Wisconsin is a state that is heavily reliant on coal
produced power, and has some of the most stringent emission cuts necessary. In
2012 its emissions were 42,317,602. The plan requires WI to cut its emissions
by 33.9% to 27,986,988 by 2030.
State and National critiques of the plan site price spikes and
power shortages, renewable energy isn’t as efficient and reliable as coal. They
also talk about the affordability of coal. It argues that these are unrealistic
levels and that cutting the emissions to power plants doesn’t do much in the
way of global climate change. Completely
ignoring the overall health benefits from cleaner air. They cry about how China
and India pollute more and that climate change is a natural process, not anthropogenic.
Wisconsin is one of 26 states that are
suing the U.S. government to repeal the plan. Wisconsin’s currently is lagging
behind in moving towards renewable energy. WE energies has tried to tax the
installation and use of solar panels, thus impeding a shift towards renewable
energy, and putting emphasis on coal power. Since 2008, Wisconsin has opened up “cleaner”
coal powered plants in Wausau and Oak Creek which account for roughly 13% of
the state’s carbon emission. Wisconsin
is more likely to utilize the shift to natural gas and more efficient coal
power building blocks, rather than update into the renewable energy movement.
What are ways in which Wisconsin residents can demand taking the shift to renewable energy building block rather than prolonging our use of fossil fuels?
Matt,
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I really enjoyed learning more about the CPP and how it could potentially be used to influence others on an international level. I particularly enjoyed viewing the graphics you provided. I think that communicating that the benefits outweigh the costs is essential. Perhaps more would be inclined to support such reductions regardless of whether or not they "believe" that climate change exists. The health-related and monetary argument alone should be more than enough to satisfy the understanding as to why clean energy is a necessity. Overall, I'm not too sure that the general public understands the pressing nature associated with air contamination. Visible representations of the costs, like the ones you provided, provide a rather effective way to convey how expenditures can be avoided. Well done.
-Neil
Hi Matt,
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting on the Clean Power Plan! I agree with Neil that educating the general public on the critical threats to health that sustained fossil-fuel consumption causes is the first step to ensuring Wisconsin compliance. However I also believe that the most influential means to ensuring this compliance will be twofold. Firstly, our population of informed citizens, pushing legislative bodies to stay on track with the international discussion on energy, is a force of great importance. In this way, community action and vocalization for environmental stewardship can and has kept officials' decisions in line when greater political ties may turn interests off track.
Secondly, the network of private companies also has the power to steer WI into compliance with the national CPP emissions standards. In my opinion, the interests of private and non-profit entities will be the most powerful in influencing legislators toward the most responsible and efficient options. Why might this be? Not a month prior to Obama's final ruling of the Clean Power Plan this past August, a "Menu of Options" was released to the governmental and corporate actors affected. This menu of options (see link below) gives a list of over 26 different paths to choose from to successfully reduce state-wide CO2 emissions. Some examples include optimizing heating and cooling efficiency in power plant buildings, carbon sequestration, the creation of new markets for technology/equipment trading, etc. etc.
The fact that this menu exists tells me that the ruling is less-so a black and white "close the power plants and cut production or else!" plan, but will allow corporations and local governments to build up small strategic approaches. Apart from the peer-to-peer energy trading that companies may likely engage in, this plan is HUGE incentive for US-based companies to finally take a step up to the "renewable" playing field that many other European countries abide by.
(http://www.4cleanair.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Menu-Executive-Summary.pdf)
-Found on: http://www.4cleanair.org/NACAA_Menu_of_Options
-Distributed at U.S.- China cooperation briefing, U.S. Senate, 14 July 2015
Since so many states and private corporations have filed lawsuits against this plan, I wonder how it will effect the implementation. Many states have refused to even craft policy plans in preparation for compliance. All states need to submit a compliance plan by Sept 6th 2016, so there is plenty of time for them to create one. Of course, our own great state of Wisconsin is one such state which has chosen to be a part of the lawsuit and also has not started work on a compliance plan. The CCP also says that states who do not submit a plan will be subject to a federal plan, which hasn't been specified yet. The rules and provisions of the CCP are under fierce attack right now in the House and Senate, with two bills that are likely to pass but get vetoed. The power of the purse is in the US House though, and it looks like they have passed a bill preventing allocated funds from being used to enforce parts of the CCP.
ReplyDeleteSince our own SE Wisconsin power company has coal plants in many of the highest emitting states, I expect a full out blitz campaign with lobbying and even public relations TV ads during this process. It seems likely they will pressure us with ads scaring us with rate hikes. Brace yourself!
Cheers!
Philip
Matt,
ReplyDeleteThis post on the CPP is especially poignant given that scientific evidence has emerged that the planet is set to reach the 1 degree Celsius increase in average global temperature.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/release/archive/2015/one-degree
I had to wade through a ghastly comments section to find the link to that article, so I hope someone will take a look at it. As much as I hope that visual aids like the ones you've provided will help to dispel misconceptions about climate change, many of the anti science crowd are too politicized to sway when presented with new information. On a less cynical note, it's good to see exactly where Wisconsin ranks in power plant carbon emissions and I hope that positive policy changes will eventually result from this knowledge.