Power Plant Pollution is Clearly Significant – Watts Up With That?

Figure 1: (https://policyintegrity.org/files/publications/Power_Sector_GHG_Contribution_Issue_Brief_vF.pdf)

One useful way to confirm that a sector’s contributions to climate change merit regulation is to evaluate whether the benefits of reducing that sector’s emissions justify the costs. From that perspective, the U.S. power sector unquestionably makes a meaningful contribution to climate change that is worth regulating. EPA’s 2024 carbon pollution standards for fossil-fuel-fired ower plants, for example, entailed less than a billion dollars in costs per year and in return achieved $14 billion per year in climate benefits (not to mention an additional $6.3 billion per year in health benefits from reduction of co-pollutants)

The estimates are from the Fact Sheet for the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants Final Rule, Standards And Regulatory Impact Analysis. This nonsense does not deserve a detailed rebuttal.  Climate benefits were calculated based on the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC).  Value judgements by biased analysts over-estimate societal benefit claims in the EPA Final Rule.  Furthermore, the Fact Sheet states: “The Regulatory Impact Assessment projects 1.38 billion metric tons total of CO2 avoided from 2028-2047 systemwide along with tens of thousands of tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5).  The use of avoided emissions increases the total, but SCC benefits are based on annual emission reductions.  That approach coupled with biased SCC results in massive numbers that are not realistic. 

The report also argues that US action will prompt other countries to cut their emissions in response to our reductions: “Regardless, most claims about leakage overlook how countries may be just as—or even more likely to—reciprocally reduce their own emissions in response to U.S. emissions-cutting policies and goals.  The report disparages the idea that foreign countries will increase their emissions in response and suggests that leakage is not an issue.  In the real world when an industry that depends on electrical energy cannot afford to stay in business in the US because the alternative to fossil-fueled electric production are so much more expensive, their product will be produced elsewhere.  It is very likely that the alternative location does not have the same pollution and efficiency standards so the emissions will go elsewhere and increase to boot.  Claiming otherwise is magical thinking.

There are other easily debunked claims that I do not have the time to address.  However, I cannot let the claim that “The U.S. power sector’s annual emissions will cause thousands of U.S.. mortalities” go without a response.  If their claims have merit, then the change in any of the claimed morbidity and mortality health effects should have improved from 1990 to the present proportional to the observed emission reductions.  I have never seen any analysis that made such a claim, so I say that their projections are hokum.  If any reader has found such an analysis, please let us all know.

Conclusion

The report concludes that “By any measure, emissions from major U.S. industries, like the electric power sector contribute significantly to climate damages.”  The measures described in the report are biased, based on selective choice of metrics, and ignore historical emissions improvements. 

Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York.  This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.

Related