The Environmental Protection Agency is finalizing an expected rule on greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, and while opponents of any such rules have deployed the standard arguments, the time has long since arrived to impose such limits on one of the nation’s most prolific sources of carbon dioxide. The Obama administration is poised to take a strong regulatory stance on what is a known contributor to climate change, and it has the authority and responsibility to do so.
The new rule will likely aim to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants – coal or natural-gas burning – by up to 25 percent. A percentage reduction is nothing new for such rules; the mechanism by which the EPA seeks to achieve it is interesting though. Rather than a plant-by-plant approach, the agency will compel states to reduce their overall power plant carbon footprint by whatever final percentage the rule embodies. By crafting a state-by-state approach rather than dealing with each plant individually, the EPA allows for a range of solutions to reach the greenhouse gas-reduction goal. Those facilities that burn cleaner can sell offsets, and dirtier power plants can invest in renewable-energy projects elsewhere in a particular state to counterweigh carbon pollution. The long-term results for such investments, of course, will be a move away from traditional electricity sources. That is just fine.
The numbers and science are crystal clear. Electricity production accounts for 38 percent of the greenhouse gases the United States emits each year, and more than 25 percent of those total U.S. emissions are from burning coal. The United States is second only to China in its carbon-dioxide contribution to the atmosphere – a fact that those opposed to any U.S. regulations use to justify a path of inaction: If China is worse and always will be, any domestic action will be globally irrelevant. That logic is convenient but not particularly compelling. Others’ decisions to do nothing does not let us off the hook for inaction.
Scientists resoundingly agree that global warming is linked to greenhouse-gas emissions. It really is not a question. What remains is the answer, and the EPA is poised to offer one with flexibility and a hope of measurable results. Asking states to control their collective utility-based emissions will force power generators into a community conversation that can drive the industry – and the environment – to a healthier place. In Durango, downwind of two coal-fired power plants outside of Farmington, this matters. These facilities together make up the single-largest point source of pollution – greenhouse gas and otherwise – in the United States, according to a study from the Los Alamos National Laboratory released last week. That is reason alone for regional residents to applaud the impending EPA rule. But the nationwide and worldwide implications are far more important.
The EPA is within its authority to regulate greenhouse gases: A 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling clarified that. Nevertheless, it is a sure bet that the agency’s new rule will face legal challenges from those whose interests are threatened by it. That should not deter the EPA from doing what is right. The rule, which is expected to be announced Monday, is a significant move in that direction.
