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

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…