Browse
Search
CFE agenda 091415
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Commission for the Environment
>
Agendas
>
2015
>
CFE agenda 091415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/2/2018 10:37:11 AM
Creation date
3/2/2018 10:35:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
9/14/2015
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Document Relationships
CFE minutes 091415
(Message)
Path:
\Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active\Commission for the Environment\Minutes\2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
North Carolina's curious response to EPA's Clean Power Plan <br />LJgLJ St:1 0th, 2015 <br />1E.: Y IR161biiiil uulirmlii th colin t urlii Ilkwtii lin c6ll uiriuui lii t <br />In one way, the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) <br />emissions from power plants released on Monday looks like a typical air quality rule. The Clean Power <br />Plan rule sets state by state reduction goals for a pollutant (CO2) from a particular set of sources <br />(electric generating facilities). <br />But the rule takes an unusual and innovative approach to meeting those goals. The rule identifies three <br />components (or "building blocks" in EPA rule- speak) of a plan to reduce CO2 emissions associated with <br />power generation: 1. reducing power plant CO2 emissions (the traditional Clean Air Act approach); 2. <br />increased electric generation from renewable energy sources; and 3. transition of electric generation <br />facilities from coal to natural gas. <br />In effect, the rule aims to lower CO2 emissions per kilowatt hour used and allows the states to take <br />credit for CO2 emissions avoided by shifting electric generation to energy sources with low or no CO2 <br />emissions. EPA set state CO2 reduction goals by estimating how much each state could lower CO2 <br />emissions using the three basic building blocks. (The earlier draft EPA rule used energy efficiency as a <br />fourth "building block" in setting state CO2 reduction goals; the final rule does not, but still allows a <br />state to use energy efficiency measures to meet its reduction goal.) <br />The proposed EPA rule requires each state to submit a plan for meeting its CO2 reduction target by June <br />30, 2016. The state plan can rely on any or all of the three "building blocks" in the EPA rule; it can also <br />include measures that fall outside those categories – including increased energy efficiency — as long as <br />the plan achieves the CO2 reduction target for regulated electric generation facilities. If a state fails to <br />develop a plan, EPA can create a federal plan for the state. <br />The McCrory administration has opposed the Clean Power Plan rule — in written comments, in <br />testimony before Congressional committees and in a statement released on Monday. In part, the <br />administration has argued that the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue a rule that relies on <br />measures — such as increased reliance on renewable energy — that go beyond limiting pollutant <br />emissions from regulated power plants. <br />Last week, the practical implications of that position became clearer when DENR Secretary Donald van <br />der Vaart told a Senate committee that the McCrory administration intends to resist the flexibility <br />offered under the federal rule and submit a CO2 reduction plan based entirely on requiring additional <br />CO2 emission reductions at power plants. <br />The Secretary's comments came as a state Senate committee debated House Bill 571, which requires <br />DENR to develop a state CO2 reduction plan with the participation of the public and the electric utilities. <br />DENR did not support House Bill 571, but the bill passed the House with a bipartisan majority and the <br />support of the state's major electric utilities and environmental organizations. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.