My guess is you may not have even heard about FERC or NERC until the preceding lesson. If I said
Federal Electric Utility Regulation, you'd probably think more in terms of environmental protection. I'm betting EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is something that probably came to mind at some point. Speaking of which, the Energy Policy Acts are something you need to do know about.
There are two, one in 1992, and the other in 2005. Basically, these Acts created tax incentives to encourage the addition of more renewable resources. Supporters of the Energy Policy Acts, feel like it's a very effective way to encourage wind and solar and at the same time discourage the construction of additional coal plants. The other side of the coin is, that those who criticize it say that the government incentives artificially subsidize the cost of renewable energy on the backs of the public. Those who don't like it also say that because the Fed has focused on creating competition at the wholesale electricity level, introducing subsidies for renewable energy really makes for a distorted and unbalanced market. Where you stand likely has a lot to do with your extent industry knowledge and even your political ideology.
This is something that each of us will need to weigh for ourselves. What I can recommend, is that you do some digging and research to hear both sides of the story to make your own informed opinions. I would love to hear more about your opinion of this on the discussion boards. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has been around since 1970, and it was formed under President Nixon. The agency's mission is pretty lofty. It exists to protect human health and the environment. You probably hear about them when an organization is getting called to the carpet for violations. It tends to make the news. And it's also living proof that any publicity is good publicity, is so far from the truth. Electric utilities are not the only industry that this agency oversees, of course. And this agency does not handle every environmental concern. There are other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies that have specific areas of the environment they focus on, too. Like wildlife preservation, for example, is handled by another agency. So what do they focus on when it comes to electric utilities?
Well, they look at a number of things but let's talk about coal-fired plant emissions because that's a pretty hot topic right now and promises to stay that way. The EPA's Clean Power Plan is one of the things that is at the forefront right now and can be a heated topic. By, heated, I mean really, really heated. The goal of the plan is to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. One of the biggest concerns of the plan has to do with roles and scope of authority. There's a large objection that the EPA is seriously overstepping its bounds into what the state governments responsibility is supposed to be. In fact, some opponents say the EPA has no authority in these matters and needs to let the states handle it. The less vehement feel like reducing greenhouse gases is good, but the timeline is just not realistic at all.
As you know now, in a heavily regulated market, costs need to be justified and demonstrate maximum value, which does not always lend itself to speed. Just as passionately, supporters applaud the plan and cite some of the costs that are hard to put a dollar figure to. The community's health, for example. They tend to stay away from the role discussion and the operational cost side of the equation and focus more on the benefits of environmental protection on health as well as the local geography, including aesthetics. In the summer of 2014, President Obama issued an executive order calling for coal-fired plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30% to compare to what they were in 2005. They have until 2030 to get this done. This executive order does give the states flexibility to figure out the way that works best in their states. So, they could add some energy efficiency programs or they could add more wind and solar to their generation mix. They could also buy and sell some
government-issued pollution permits. Basically, a cap and trade program. Supporters applaud the focus on reducing emissions stack pollution, which they identify as the main driver of global warming and health issues. Power plants are responsible for US carbon pollution. Right now mercury, arsenic, lead, and soot have been targeted as power plant pollutants that are being monitored and reduced. But carbon pollution has been later in the game.
The opposition says it will negatively impact the national financial vitality of this country, gross domestic product, GDP, employment and real household income. They also say the efforts will have
a very small impact on global CO2 emissions anyway. The Chamber of Commerce says that it would
only tackle 1.8% of global CO2 emissions. And then they ask the question, at what financial burden?
They say it would have some real consequences, reducing the GDP by $51 billion annually and increasing electricity cost by $289 billion. Decommissioning of assets will also come with a pretty hefty price tag. If you believe this, you know that this will also impact the price of the things we
rely on that are manufactured. Because the costs of those manufactured goods will go up. Regardless of where you stand on the issues, it makes sense, in this case, to do your homework. Paying attention to the sound bites on social media and other online sources, will not help you get a 360 view of this
very real balancing act as it unfolds.
Question: Do some digging! I've gotten you started by outlining what some of the supporters and opponents say about the Clean Power Plan. What is your informed opinion on where this plan succeeds and where it may fall short?
Answer in the comment box below.
Federal Electric Utility Regulation, you'd probably think more in terms of environmental protection. I'm betting EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is something that probably came to mind at some point. Speaking of which, the Energy Policy Acts are something you need to do know about.
There are two, one in 1992, and the other in 2005. Basically, these Acts created tax incentives to encourage the addition of more renewable resources. Supporters of the Energy Policy Acts, feel like it's a very effective way to encourage wind and solar and at the same time discourage the construction of additional coal plants. The other side of the coin is, that those who criticize it say that the government incentives artificially subsidize the cost of renewable energy on the backs of the public. Those who don't like it also say that because the Fed has focused on creating competition at the wholesale electricity level, introducing subsidies for renewable energy really makes for a distorted and unbalanced market. Where you stand likely has a lot to do with your extent industry knowledge and even your political ideology.
This is something that each of us will need to weigh for ourselves. What I can recommend, is that you do some digging and research to hear both sides of the story to make your own informed opinions. I would love to hear more about your opinion of this on the discussion boards. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, has been around since 1970, and it was formed under President Nixon. The agency's mission is pretty lofty. It exists to protect human health and the environment. You probably hear about them when an organization is getting called to the carpet for violations. It tends to make the news. And it's also living proof that any publicity is good publicity, is so far from the truth. Electric utilities are not the only industry that this agency oversees, of course. And this agency does not handle every environmental concern. There are other federal, tribal, state, and local agencies that have specific areas of the environment they focus on, too. Like wildlife preservation, for example, is handled by another agency. So what do they focus on when it comes to electric utilities?
Well, they look at a number of things but let's talk about coal-fired plant emissions because that's a pretty hot topic right now and promises to stay that way. The EPA's Clean Power Plan is one of the things that is at the forefront right now and can be a heated topic. By, heated, I mean really, really heated. The goal of the plan is to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. One of the biggest concerns of the plan has to do with roles and scope of authority. There's a large objection that the EPA is seriously overstepping its bounds into what the state governments responsibility is supposed to be. In fact, some opponents say the EPA has no authority in these matters and needs to let the states handle it. The less vehement feel like reducing greenhouse gases is good, but the timeline is just not realistic at all.
As you know now, in a heavily regulated market, costs need to be justified and demonstrate maximum value, which does not always lend itself to speed. Just as passionately, supporters applaud the plan and cite some of the costs that are hard to put a dollar figure to. The community's health, for example. They tend to stay away from the role discussion and the operational cost side of the equation and focus more on the benefits of environmental protection on health as well as the local geography, including aesthetics. In the summer of 2014, President Obama issued an executive order calling for coal-fired plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 30% to compare to what they were in 2005. They have until 2030 to get this done. This executive order does give the states flexibility to figure out the way that works best in their states. So, they could add some energy efficiency programs or they could add more wind and solar to their generation mix. They could also buy and sell some
government-issued pollution permits. Basically, a cap and trade program. Supporters applaud the focus on reducing emissions stack pollution, which they identify as the main driver of global warming and health issues. Power plants are responsible for US carbon pollution. Right now mercury, arsenic, lead, and soot have been targeted as power plant pollutants that are being monitored and reduced. But carbon pollution has been later in the game.
The opposition says it will negatively impact the national financial vitality of this country, gross domestic product, GDP, employment and real household income. They also say the efforts will have
a very small impact on global CO2 emissions anyway. The Chamber of Commerce says that it would
only tackle 1.8% of global CO2 emissions. And then they ask the question, at what financial burden?
They say it would have some real consequences, reducing the GDP by $51 billion annually and increasing electricity cost by $289 billion. Decommissioning of assets will also come with a pretty hefty price tag. If you believe this, you know that this will also impact the price of the things we
rely on that are manufactured. Because the costs of those manufactured goods will go up. Regardless of where you stand on the issues, it makes sense, in this case, to do your homework. Paying attention to the sound bites on social media and other online sources, will not help you get a 360 view of this
very real balancing act as it unfolds.
Question: Do some digging! I've gotten you started by outlining what some of the supporters and opponents say about the Clean Power Plan. What is your informed opinion on where this plan succeeds and where it may fall short?
Answer in the comment box below.
0 comments:
Post a Comment