Federal carbon-cutting plan to benefit New Jersey air June 2, 2014, 9:09 PM Last updated: Monday, June 2, 2014, 10:15 PM BY JAMES M. O’NEILL STAFF WRITER The Record A plan President Obama unveiled Monday to drastically cut carbon emissions and reduce the effects of climate change should also provide a significant side benefit for New Jersey — improved air quality. The target of the new plan — coal-fired power plants — emit many other pollutants besides carbon, and those pollutants get blown from Midwestern states into New Jersey, affecting local air quality and exacerbating respiratory illnesses. The efforts the plants will have to undertake to reduce their carbon emissions will also lead to a reduction in these other emissions, officials said. “We’ve been choking on Midwestern pollution long enough and this plan will go a long way towards cleaning up the dirtiest fossil-fuel power plants out there,” said Doug O’Malley, director of Environmental New Jersey. Besides carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas blamed for global warming, coal-burning plants emit particulates, or soot, which have been linked to premature death in people with heart or lung disease. Particulates can also cause heart attacks and increase respiratory symptoms. Coal plants also emit sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, which react in the atmosphere to create ground-level ozone, another pollutant that aggravates lung diseases such as asthma, emphysema and chronic bronchitis. The Environmental Protection Agency, which developed the plan to require extensive cuts in carbon emissions, said it will cause a reduction in soot pollution, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide by more than 25 percent by 2030, preventing up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks in children, and 490,000 missed work or school days in the nation each year. Air pollution is a problem in New Jersey, which continually fails the federal air quality standard for ozone. Efforts to combat pollution in the state have helped, but can’t entirely clean up the air because of the significant emissions rolling in from other states: About 22 percent of emissions that affect New Jersey ozone levels come from Pennsylvania. Virginia, Ohio, West Virginia and Kentucky combine for another 17 percent. While New Jersey plants emitted 1,374 tons of sulfur dioxide in 2012, Pennsylvania plants emitted nearly 233,000 tons, and Ohio plants emitted nearly 324,000 tons. “For the sake of our families’ health and our kids’ future, we have a moral obligation to act on climate,” said Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator. “Rising temperatures bring more smog, more asthma, and longer allergy seasons.” To emphasize the health aspects of the new carbon emissions rule, Obama on Monday participated in a conference call with the American Lung Association, national health groups and health professionals from across the country. “Evidence is clear that pollution from power plants is harming the health of our nation,” said Harold Wimmer, the lung association’s president. “For the nearly half of all Americans already living in areas with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution, curbing carbon pollution emissions is a critical step forward for protecting public health from the impacts of climate change happening today.” The primary goal of the carbon plan proposed Monday is to ensure that by 2030, power plants nationwide have cut carbon emissions by 30 percent from 2005 levels. That means power companies will likely shutter some old, inefficient, heavily polluting coal-fired plants in favor of new, cleaner-burning, natural-gas-fired facilities. Power plants account for about a third of all domestic greenhouse gas emissions in the country, according to the EPA. Carbon pollution, rather than affecting air quality directly, works like a blanket to trap heat in the atmosphere and prevent its escape. The trapped heat raises air and ocean temperatures, which melt polar ice, raising sea levels. More energy in the atmosphere can produce more intense storms. The plan does not set specific carbon limits on individual power plants. Instead, it sets targets for each state, which vary widely based on their current power plant fleet. Some states, such as Kentucky and West Virginia, rely far more heavily on coal-fired plants, which emit much larger amounts of carbon than natural-gas-fired plants. Nuclear facilities and renewable sources, such as solar and wind, produce no carbon emissions. The unprecedented new EPA rule, which some said will position the United States as a global leader in the fight against climate change, drew praise from environmental groups, and was attacked by some in the fossil fuel industry, as well as legislators from coal- and oil-producing states that rely heavily on coal-fired plants. Sen. Mitch McConnell,R-Ky., called the rule “a dagger in the heart of the American middle class,” while Rep. Steve Scalise,R-La., said it is “a continuation of President Obama’s attack on American jobs,” saying it will “lead to less take-home pay and higher energy costs for hardworking taxpayers as well as those on fixed incomes.” The EPA’s McCarthy emphasized what she called the economic benefits of the plan. “As our seas rise, so do insurance premiums, property taxes and food prices. If we do nothing, in our grandkids’ lifetimes, temperatures could rise 10 degrees and seas could rise 4 feet.” “This is not just about disappearing polar bears or melting ice caps,” she said. “This is about protecting our health and our homes. This is about protecting local economies and jobs.” Carbon emissions by New Jersey’s power sector in 2012 were small compared with states that rely heavily on coal plants — half of New Jersey’s power generation comes from nuclear facilities, which do not emit carbon. And two of its remaining coal-fired plants switch to cleaner-burning natural gas for some of the year. While New Jersey’s plants reported 12 million metric tons of emissions from sources covered by the new rule, Pennsylvania had 106 million metric tons. And while New Jersey emitted 932 pounds per megawatt hour of energy produced, Kentucky’s facilities emitted 2,158 pounds per megawatt hour, according to EPA data. The new rule would require New Jersey to cut its 2012 carbon emission rate by 43 percent, to 531 pounds per megawatt hour of energy produced. Some big coal-burning states must reduce their rates by smaller percentages, but the actual metric tons of emissions cut would be far larger than New Jersey’s. Senior EPA officials said the state goals were based on what they think states can achieve over the next decade and on what their fleet of power plants looks like now. They said the EPA looked at what states are already doing to reduce carbon emissions, and also took into consideration what is expected going forward. Between 2008 and 2011, carbon emissions from the power sector decreased over 15 percent in New Jersey, according to the EPA. And New Jersey has already said that by 2015 it will retire dirty-burning old gas- and oil-fired peaker units — small facilities that only operate during peak energy demand. The state is also moving ahead with three new combined cycle gas-powered plants in West Deptford, Woodbridge and Newark, which should go online in the next few years. New Jersey has long been a leader in solar power, with the third-largest solar generating capacity in the country. And PSE&G is spending about $700 million to develop 125 megawatts more in solar capacity, on otherwise unusable landfills and brownfields, said company spokesman Michael Jennings. The new rule will give states flexibility in how they achieve their emissions cuts. However, the power industry argues there is no commercially viable technology to capture and store carbon emissions, so reductions would have to come from an array of actions, such as using natural gas plants more and coal plants less, and generating more solar and wind power. Yet another tool states might use to cut emissions is a cap-and-trade program, which sets lower emissions caps each year and requires power companies to buy credits for each ton of carbon they emit. Companies can decide its cheaper to invest in ways to reduce carbon emissions than to buy the credits as the price rises. New Jersey had been part of a 10-state cap-and-trade program, called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, but Governor Christie pulled the state out in 2011. He argued that it added to the cost of electricity without actually forcing power plants to cut emissions. In statements praising Obama’s new carbon rule Monday, both of New Jersey’s Democratic senators, Bob Menendez and Cory Booker, said they hoped that the rule would prompt New Jersey to rejoin RGGI. The EPA will now take public comment on the proposed rule for four months. A final rule is expected by next June. Obama has said he wants the rule in place before his second term ends, though it will likely face legal challenges from opponents. Email: oneillj@northjersey Twitter: @JamesMONeill1
Posted on: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 05:15:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015