• E-mail
• Print
• Comment
• Font Size
• Digg
• del.icio.us
• Discuss article

Plan Would Cut Power Plants' Emissions

Posted on: Thursday, 25 August 2005, 15:00 CDT

Power plant greenhouse gases would be cut by 10 percent in New Jersey and eight other Northeast states by 2020 under a plan being developed by those states.

The plan, the first of its kind in the United States, would not improve air quality significantly, because much of New Jersey's air pollution comes from coal-fired plants in the Midwest. But environmentalists and state officials said Wednesday that the proposal could act as a blueprint for other regional accords to reduce emissions blamed for global warming.

"Are the Northeast states going to solve global warming on their own? No," said Dale Bryk, senior attorney of the Natural Resources Defense Council who contributed to the plan. "But they will show others the best way to do this. We can't wait and sit on our hands."

The proposal would call for 600 power plants in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont to develop a plan to freeze carbon dioxide emissions and gradually reduce them during the next 15 years.

News of the proposal, first reported Wednesday by The New York Times, was met with skepticism by business associations and energy companies.

The plan would allow energy companies to develop ways to lower emissions, but wouldn't provide a cheap and sweeping solution.

The power industry has said that technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions does not exist without costly changes that would have to be passed along to consumers. Carbon dioxide - from burning coal, oil and gas - accounts for the majority of greenhouse emissions.

"We're concerned about the cost of the program, that the only viable way to achieve the reductions is fuel switching" to natural gas from coal, said Neil Brown, a spokesman for Public Service Enterprise Group Inc., the largest utility in the state.

New Jersey produced 13 million tons of carbon dioxide in 2004 - less than 38 other states, according to data from the federal Environmental Protection Agency.

And only 10 percent of the electricity generated in New Jersey comes from the two PSEG plants, in Jersey City and Mercer County, that use coal, Brown said.

Six other PSEG plants use natural gas and oil, which produce much less carbon dioxide. The state's three nuclear reactors do not produce any.

Brown said that he couldn't estimate the cost of converting the two coal-burning plants.

"We're talking about plants in nine states," he said. "It adds up."

PSEG also fears that the only way it would be able to curb its emissions without raising rates would be to reduce production and buy energy from plants that are not subject to the emissions cap.

But Bryk said New Jersey could cap the amount of energy that can be bought from a supplier outside the coalition.

"The whole matter is to make the dirtiest coal plants lose market share," she said. "A company [outside the coalition] is likely to increase its revenue because of its gas and nuclear plants."

Like PSEG, the New Jersey Business and Industry Association wants all power plants to be subject to the changes so that no area would be hurt by potential rate hikes.

New Jersey businesses could move to Pennsylvania, which already has lower energy rates and is not part of the nine-state coalition.

"It's hard to keep businesses or attract new businesses if it costs more to power a business," said Sara Bluhm, director of energy and federal affairs for the 23,000-member association.

Officials from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection said they hope the coalition will complete the plan in the next few months.

The proposal also would need to be adopted by legislatures in all nine states.

Support seems likely in New Jersey. In 2004, it became the first state to declare that carbon dioxide was a pollutant. The state has also sued power companies in Ohio and elsewhere to curb pollution that drifts eastward.

The aggressive stance by the Northeastern states sharply differs from that of the Bush administration.

The White House refused to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant last year, saying federal law doesn't allow such regulation, and it insists that the science on global warming is unclear.

Experts still debate just what effect rising temperatures will have. Climate change could cause more coastal flooding, more violent storms and extended droughts.

And there is debate about how much effect a regional plan will have. Emissions would have to be cut by 60 percent worldwide to have a real effect on global air temperature, said Bill Solecki, a geography professor at Hunter College who was a lead author on a report on climate change in the metropolitan region.

"Climate change is really at a global scale," he said. "You might have reduced ozone production in the area, but any evidence that there will be a change in climate will be limited."

***

E-mail: fallon@northjersey.com

(SIDEBAR, page A01)

What it means

What's new: New Jersey and eight other Northeastern states have drafted a plan to cut power plant emissions by 10 percent during the next 15 years. Officials hope it will reduce heat-trapping gases responsible for global warming.

What's next: The proposal must be adopted by legislatures in each of the nine states.

What they're saying:

"The whole matter is to make the dirtiest coal plants lose market share. A company [outside the coalition] is likely to increase its revenue because of its gas and nuclear plants." - Dale Bryk of the Natural Resources Defense Council

"It's hard to keep businesses or attract new businesses if it costs more to power a business. A national standard is better for business." - Sara Bluhm of the New Jersey Business and Industry Association

Source: Record, The; Bergen County, N.J.

More News in this Category