EPA’s analysis shows the Clean Power Plan will force the closure of 46 to 49 gigawatts of coal-fired plant capacity—equal to about 15% of all U.S. coal- fired generation capacity
Energy Impacts of the EPA Pro- posed Clean Power Plan.” Bills in the House and Senate
offer what supporters are calling a balanced approach to environmen- tal and energy policies. The Rate- payer Protection Act (H.R. 2042), introduced by Reps. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) and Col- lin Peterson (D-Minn.), and the Affordable Reliable Energy Now Act (ARENA) (S. 1324), introduced by Sen. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W. Va.), would: • Extend the Clean Power Plan rule’s compliance dates pending final judicial review, including the dates for submission of state plans.
• Create safe harbor for states to protect ratepayers, prevent- ing states from being forced to implement the rule if doing so would have significant adverse impacts to ratepayers.
• Require EPA to issue state-spe-
cific model plans demonstrating how each state could meet the required greenhouse gas emis- sions reductions under the rule.
Ozone Regulation EPA has proposed tightening
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone from its current standard of 75 parts per billion to between 65-70 ppb. It is estimated the rule could cost the nation $140 billion annually. According to EPA’s data, 322 of
675 monitored counties are now violating the current ozone standard. Counties and states have just begun implementing the new standard earlier this year after a lengthy court battle lasting since 2008, when the rule was finalized. Detractors of the rule say the
emissions reduction costs will have significant impact on the nation’s energy sector, because it is projected to lead to the premature retire- ment of many coal-fired plants. It
also will cause most states to be in “no-growth zones” because they will fall into nonattainment areas. Nonattainment designation triggers additional pollution control require- ments, restrictions on expansion and more stringent permitting require- ments, which will apply to manufac- turing facilities, as well as new and modified power plants. Metalcasting facilities in nonat- tainment areas will not be able to expand production or build a new facility without a significant reduc- tion of emissions or shutdown of operations from other plants in the local area. Funds for roads and high- ways also could be frozen in nonat- tainment areas.
In light of the economic hard-
ship a new ozone standard could cause, legislators have introduced the Clean Air Strong Economies (CASE) Act (S. 751/H.R. 1388). The CASE Act would: • Improve the ozone rulemaking process by requiring better scien-
June 2015 MODERN CASTING | 21
Photo credit: “DTE St Clair” by Cgord (talk)
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60