EPA rule's launch represents new experiment in federalism. "States got a first look at U.S. EPA's proposed carbon dioxide regulations yesterday. At first blush, the phone book-sized rule gave them a puzzle with the potential of 50 different ways to lower their carbon emissions. It gave them a deadline with a final rule due next summer. Reactions ranged from incendiary to a warm enthusiasm....The more cautious reactions of most state governments and their agencies reflect the complex energy landscape of the United States, where some states have embraced carbon reduction, while others see their fortunes tied to the ongoing viability of fossil fuels....States have wide latitude to meet their carbon reduction targets under the proposed rule....Nor are proposed reductions uniform across the states." Nathanael Massey in ClimateWire.
Explainer: How exactly do you figure out what each state will have to do? Brad Plumer in Vox.
U.S. warming also breaks down by localities. "The United States is warming fastest at two of its corners, in the Northeast and the Southwest, an analysis of federal temperature records shows....The contiguous United States' annual average temperature has warmed by 1.2 degrees since 1984, with summers getting 1.6 degrees hotter. But that doesn't really tell you how hot it's gotten for most Americans. While man-made greenhouse gases warm the world as a whole, weather is supremely local. Some areas have gotten hotter than others because of atmospheric factors and randomness, climate scientists say." Seth Borenstein in the Associated Press.
How some states' backlash could create the climate-regulation version of HealthCare.gov. "In at least eight states, lawmakers have approved symbolic anti-EPA resolutions based on a model approved by the American Legislative Exchange Council....Kentucky has gone even further, enacting a law this spring that could block the state from complying with EPA’s rule. West Virginia and Kansas have new laws taking aim at the regulation one way or another....If the anti-EPA trend catches fire, it would force the agency to write a greenhouse gas reduction plan for every state that refuses to submit its own. That would bring renewed accusations of federal overreach...and it would thwart EPA’s hopes of letting each state choose its own strategy for reducing power plants’ carbon pollution." Andrew Restuccia in Politico.
Turns out meeting renewable-energy targets isn't that expensive for states. "Among the 24 states with renewable portfolio standards that were analyzed, the cost of complying between 2010 and 2012 was equal on average to roughly 1 percent of retail electricity rates — according to a study....The average additional cost in 2012 for renewable energy came to about 2 cents for each kilowatt-hour....There has been upward pressure on the cost of compliance as renewable-energy targets are raised and more renewable sources are added....But because many states...cap the rate impacts of renewable energy, the pressure likely will not translate to higher bills." Mark Jaffe in The Denver Post.
What could the EPA learn from California? "When California launched its landmark global warming law in the final years of the George W. Bush administration, it was a risky act of defiance from a state frustrated by federal inaction....Now, the federal government is trying to catch up — and that could position the state to cash in....If the rule is finalized in its current form...California can easily adhere to it. In addition, other states are likely to clamor for California's help....Nichols rattles off the ways California could benefit from the Obama administration's ambitious push. The most obvious is through an expansion of the fledgling trading market for carbon pollution credits at the core of California's program....There are also less direct potential benefits." Evan Halper in the Los Angeles Times.
Other energy/environmental reads:
Is new emissions plan a turning point in our love affair with coal? Dennis Dimick in National Geographic.
How renewables could be key to lower energy costs. Ed Crooks in The Financial Times.
No comments:
Post a Comment