Skip to main content

Northeast States to Regulate Greenhouse Gases

From today's New York Times:
Officials in New York and eight other Northeastern states have come to a preliminary agreement to freeze power plant emissions at their current levels and then reduce them by 10 percent by 2020, according to a confidential draft proposal.

The cooperative action, the first of its kind in the nation, came after the Bush administration decided not to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. Once a final agreement is reached, the legislatures of the nine states will have to enact it, which is considered likely.

Enforcement of emission controls could potentially result in higher energy prices in the nine states, which officials hope can be offset by subsidies and support for the development of new technology that would be paid for with the proceeds from the sale of emission allowances to the utility companies.
The nine states are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Of critical concern to the nuclear energy industry, is the question of whether or not nuclear generating capacity -- especially new nuclear generating capacity -- will qualify as a non-emitting source of electricity under this agreement. Currently, nuclear accounts for 75 percent of the non-emitting electrical generating capacity in the U.S. Without nuclear energy, emissions of all types of pollutants would be far higher both in the Northeast and nationally.

For more on the efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions in the region, also known as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative or RGGI, click here and here.

Comments

Don kosloff said…
I doubt that RGGI will treat nuclear energy honestly and fairly. My doubts are based on two obvious factors.

First, the technical googooism of the states involved.

Second, the strongly biased and fundementally dishonest ny times would have raised an alarm in their story (the nyt carries only storie, never articles or news reports) if there had been even a hint of fair treatment in the RGGI fantasy.
Jim Hopf said…
I'm not sure that the concept of "qualifying" and a non-emitting source is even meaningful. What? Are they going to treat nuclear as an emitting source by somehow artificially "assigning" it some level of CO2 emissions? I think not.

The fact is that they will be required to reduce CO2, and nuclear doesn't add anything to overall emissions, the way any new fossil plant would. Thus, whereas nuclear may not get various goodies that may be doled out to certain favored energy options, nothing will stop this policy from giving nuclear a substantial advantage over all fossil fuels (which have always been by far its greatest real competitor).

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…