Skip to comments.EPA rule gives new boost to gas
Posted on 06/03/2014 5:09:05 AM PDT by thackney
Natural gas is poised to be one of the biggest winners of the Obama administrations new plan to slash carbon dioxide emissions, accelerating the electric sectors move away from coal toward the cleaner-burning power source.
Despite a modest climb in coal use for electric generation in 2013, it already has fallen out of favor in the power sector, as utilities increasingly turn to natural gas for its cheaper, lower-emission profile.
The Environmental Protection Agencys proposed standards requiring states to pare carbon dioxide emissions 30 percent over 2005 levels by 2030 are likely to hasten that switch.
But natural gas industry executives werent eager to crow about their victory Monday.
Instead of showering effusive praise on the Environmental Protection Agencys proposal, industry leaders talked up the agencys decision to give states broad flexibility to meet the proposed mandates an approach that ensures continued coal-to-gas switching is one of the options.
Efficient and affordable
American Gas Association President Dave McCurdy stressed the importance of carbon standards that allow efficient and affordable applications of clean natural gas.
Marty Durbin, president of Americas Natural Gas Alliance, a group of producers looking to build demand for the fossil fuel, stressed it is already providing significant economic and environmental benefits.
Flexible rules can preserve that dynamic, Durbin suggested.
The rules should be flexible and fair, Durbin said, and we believe they should recognize the ability of natural gas to play an increasing role in the delivery of reliable, safe and clean power.
States would have wide latitude deciding how to meet the EPAs proposed carbon dioxide emission cuts, with options including greater efficiency along transmission lines and among electric consumers as well as adopting more renewable power sources, such as wind and solar.
Retiring coal plants
While efficiency may be the cheapest, quickest option in the short run, retirements of coal-fired plants or adding gas to existing facilities will also help states meet the targets.
And simply increasing the use of existing U.S. power plants that run on natural gas could help move states toward their individual goals, said Derek Furstenwerth, senior director of Environmental Services for Calpine Corp., a Houston-based power company.
By simply increasing utilization of these facilities sooner rather than later, meaningful greenhouse gas emissions reductions may be achieved . . . while ensuring electric reliability, Furstenwerth said.
Natural gas production in the U.S. has surged as energy companies combine hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling to unlock the fossil fuel from dense underground rock formations, often as a byproduct of more highly prized oil.
Any increased power sector demand for natural gas could keep that activity going, suggested Marvin Odum, president of Shell Oil Co.
While we are still evaluating the proposed rule, its clear the increased use of natural gas in the existing power sector could create the opportunity for the U.S. to further capitalize on abundant North American natural gas supplies furthering an energy renaissance that continues to create jobs and a meaningful reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Odum said in a statement.
Natural gas industry analysts expect the new EPA rule will help drive electric sector demand for gas, building on a separate environmental regulation aimed at curbing mercury pollution and existing market trends.
A rough calculation by Americas Natural Gas Alliance before EPA unveiled the carbon standards on Monday suggested the rules could raise the electric sectors daily gas demand by as much as 10 billion cubic feet from the existing 22 billion cubic fee.
But not everyone is convinced.
Ross Eisenberg, vice president of energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers, which opposes the proposed carbon rule, said that natural gas gains could be short lived.
Theres opportunity for gas in the short term, he said. But in the long term, any major reductions here will hurt coal and natural gas.
Some in the oil and gas industry also have warned that the EPAs carbon-cutting plans including a previously proposed rule aimed at new power plants set dangerous precedents that could, eventually, be applied against their products.
Even ANGA took that position earlier this year, when it filed comments with the EPA saying the new plant proposal effectively locked in carbon capture and sequestration technology it said was not ready for prime time.
American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said the EPAs plan will have a chilling effect on energy investment that could cost jobs, raise electricity prices and make energy less reliable.
Air is getting cleaner under existing policies and because of the private sectors technological advancements, he said, concluding: We can continue to make environmental progress without damaging the economy.
This new law anticipates higher rates for everything.
China is laughing their a** off.
2. Years ago a power company built a natural gas generating station south of Dallas. Built it and let it sit mostly unused during the days of $13/MM CF natural gas. It is almost like this rule was created for Suez Energy ...
3. Excepting nuclear, there are few alternatives for baseline energy for the grid. Coal is probably the best over the long haul - and I don't mean the next two years of Obama trying to get elected a third term or paying off cronies.
I assert that if one of these “green” (ie, weather dependent) energy sources became viable, the left would do all it could to shut it down.
And as for this article, is it trying to paint a happy face on a turd or something?
Re: Obama third term.
I used to think that no one would actually try that. When some were saying this about Clinton, I knew it wasn’t a possibility.
With this guy? Yeah, it’s a distinct possibility. A manufactured crisis, an orchestrated crash of the economy and the utility grid, martial law - well within the possibilities of what he could and would do.
And I can just see the sheeperal excusing it and blaming conservatives.
Neither Taxing Nor Rationing CO2 Survives Cost Vs. Benefit Analysis
The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds [clouds of course aren’t gas, but high level ones do act to trap heat from escaping, while low-lying cumulus clouds tend to reflect sunlight and thereby help cool the planet -etl]. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, ‘Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,’ Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other ‘minor greenhouse gases.’ As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
That's a good thing because the supply pipelines for the NE are a bit undersized for current demand.
Any additional supply would help.
More so after they close the dozen coal burners up that way!
Yep, everything is gonna get it in the rear.
I so look forward to 250.00 a month in heating bills, up from 80.00. And of course the 500.00/month in electricity, up from 170.00, when the AC is working OT during the summer.
Ohhhh Mr. Slimeball president, I thank you for the what you are doing to my country. (actually I would like to give you a natural gas enema and light your cigarette for you)
Tax it too much, and there won't be much to oversee.
Just like the government to come up with solutions for nonexistent problems. Coal fired power plants in North Dakota and Wyoming, for instance harm what, exactly?
Welcome to California. ;) In the summer here a $500 electric bill is cheap.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.