Last week, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) dominated the news with the release of its draft Clean Power Proposal, which mandates carbon reductions from power plants. While there is a federal emissions limit for any new power plant built in the United States, this is the first federal action to regulate emissions of existing plants. The EPA’s proposal mandates an emissions reduction from the power sector by 30 percent below 2005 levels.
Last week, the Environmental Protection Agency revealed its carbon reduction plan for existing power plants. EPA’s Clean Power Plan represents America’s most significant effort so far to transition to a clean energy economy and combat climate change. Mother Nature will be undoubtedly grateful, but the economy will have plenty of reasons to celebrate, too. The fact is, the environment and the economy are not mutually exclusive. As CalCEF President and ACORE board co-chair Dan Adler aptly put it, "by allowing states to stimulate investment in local, renewable energy projects to meet carbon reduction requirements, EPA can help sustain the surge in capital commitments to these technologies and boost growth at a critical time for our economy.”
“If at first you don’t succeed, dust yourself off and try again.” Fossil fuel interests must have taken Aaliyah’s message to heart, because they continue to try to roll back pro-renewable energy policies in state legislatures, despite repeated failures over the past few years.
When You Start with a Faulty Assumption, You End Up with a Faulty Conclusion: The Problem with an Anti-Cellulosic Ethanol Study
This weekend, the Associated Press published its coverage of the results of a recent University of Nebraska study that wrongly concluded that cellulosic ethanol from corn residue (like stover) could result in 7% more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline in the short term. The study was conducted under conditions that are entirely inapplicable to modern cellulosic ethanol production, rendering its findings meaningless. Renewable fuel experts and agricultural scientists alike have slammed the study’s methodology and the EPA also distanced itself from its findings - with good reason.