Skip to main content

EEI Voting on Greenhouse Gas Legislation Position

From Bloomberg:
U.S. utility chief executive officers are voting today on a statement that would express support for federal legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The statement was drafted by the Edison Electric Institute, the Washington trade association for investor-owned utilities, which will collect the votes via conference call. The group's members are the largest U.S. utility owners, including Southern Co., American Electric Power Co. and Exelon Corp.

``EEI supports federal action or legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,'' according to the draft set of principles the utility chiefs will consider, which was obtained by Bloomberg News. The draft also says members ``clearly recognize the growing concerns regarding the threat of climate change.''

Momentum is growing in Congress to tackle global warming with mandatory limits on emissions of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases. A United Nations panel last week reported that it is more than 90 percent certain that the Earth is warming because of the carbon released by burning fossil fuels. The Bush administration said that the causes of global warming are ``no longer up for debate.''

``Having EEI decide to participate in this process is a major step forward,'' Representative Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat and the chairman of a House subcommittee on air quality, said yesterday in a telephone interview. ``It is very meaningful for industry to have decided that the time has come to work with members of Congress to draft legislation.''

Comments

Anonymous said…
It makes sense that utilities are increasingly supporting carbon controls, because the current uncertainty is making it very difficult to move forward with investment decisions for needed new base load capacity. This has major implications for nuclear--in December 2006 the Energy Information Agency published a study showing that with carbon controls their predictions for new nuclear construction go from 9 GW by 2030 for their "reference" case assumptions for construction costs, to 47 GW by 2030. Let's commend the utilities for doing the right thing here.
Starvid, Sweden said…
The easiest and cheapest, free really, way to deal with climate change is just banning new construction of coal, oil and gas fired facilites while granting wind, nuclear and pumped hydro state loan guarantees.

Exceptions will be made for reserve power and gas in those places where there is no other alternative for load balancing.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

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…

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…