As you should know by now, EPA announced new rules for carbon emissions from power plants yesterday, and the response by politicians in West Virginia was pretty pro-coal. Here is an Op/Ed I put together in response to yesterday's carbon rule. Please send me any feedback, as I would like to get a response out soon.
Jim Kotcon
Jim
Good summary of the shortcomings of the political leaders, but I would add or emphasize two things.
First I would really stress that the price of coal is so artificial because the external costs of environmental damage, health cost impact and the rapidly increasing cost of climate change should be attributed to cost of coal. Superstorm Sandy” is just the tip of the iceberg...that is melting. And the truth be known, we are paying more for the “cheap electricity” when you add all the legacy costs of health care, environmental damage and now the horrific and mounting costs to all taxpayers for the damage due to climate change.
Let me recall for you the case history that proves this quite emphatically, and is near by and recent.
In 2005, in my native home, the Province of Ontario’s then Premier, (equal to our Governor), asked “why are the health care costs so much higher in the downwind air shed areas of all our coal fired power plants?” He asked the question because BOTH the cost of health care AND the cost of power generation and distribution are in the Provincial budget.
They do not have any “private” publicly traded power companies...they are “Crown Corporations” owned by the taxpayers. In addition, they have this “horrible” and “socialistic” concept in place call single payer universal health care...everybody is covered, and it is paid from income taxes.
The premier asked them to study the facts he was seeing, and after two years of an independent analysis, concluded that when the cost of health care directly attributable to emissions from coal fired power plants were added to the cost of coal, the real cost was higher than available renewable energy. So the Province announced a plan to shut down all coal fired power plants, and that was intended to be completed last fall...although I am told there are a couple of plants that will survive till 2014.
They have replaced those plants with added solar and wind generation. They also have a F.I.T. program. And they have been able to reduce by a small amount electric utility rates.
Now to be sure, there is controversy over it all, and debates still rage about the wisdom of the plan, but the point is, because the Province has BOTH health care and electric generation in the Provincial budget, they looked at the total, whole and real cost of coal, and decided they would be better off budget wise, let alone environmentally, by killing coal in Ontario.
And the impact on WV? The “Crown Corporation” power companies of Ontario WERE one of Arch Coal’s biggest customers!
The politicians here are not taking anything close to that pragmatic and realistic an approach. They are certainly ONLY protecting their source of election funding: the profits of the coal companies. And of course, there will be a loss of severance taxes from coal as it continues to decline. But the effort Ted Boettner, Jeff Kessler and other Legislators are spelling out for finally getting a real rainy day fund going will help.
The argument that jobs are at stake is deceptive at best. Yes, as mines close, those individuals need alternative sources of income. But it is quite clear from the economies around the world, especially those that have a F.I.T. programs, that renewable energy will create more jobs in those clean industries, than will be lost by closing mines. Miners could be retrained into safe and healthy jobs instead of black lung jobs...(remembering that as a result of the autopsies, we learned that 75% of the miners that died in the Upper Big Branch explosion had black lung disease)
Diversifying the State’s economy should be a top priority. And getting wind, solar and other renewable energy products manufactured in West Virginia should be at the top of the list.
Did you know that there is a silicon refining facility just up river from Montgomery WV that ships huge cakes of silicon to solar cell manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies...out of State? There is plenty of room on that property for a PV manufacturing operation, but try as I did, I could not get anyone in the Department of Commerce, starting with Jeff Heroldt and the PEA to pursue getting a manufacturing plant there. I was told “off the record” that [promoting any such plant would be too “anti coal”!
Then of course, if and when the WV market is sufficiently incentivized with net metering and a F.I.T. program, to level the playing field, installation jobs would be created. What’s more, important...the profits of the coal companies or retraining miner for new clean jobs.
Secondly, there is ample precedent for EPA’s approach that sets rules that will spur innovation. I often use the example of the automobile. In the mid 60’s, when cars like my fathers came with a 4000 mile warranty that was for only good for 90 days, and they got 12 mpg., and were emitting tons of pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), started the process of enacting technology driving rules to force the manufacturers to clean up the emissions, including fugitive crankcase and fueling. They did so when the technology was unknown and so the industry screamed, it would destroy their business and no one could afford the cars with emission controls etc. etc. None of that came true.
As CARB’s rules went into effect, they saw how they could be improved even more. They realized that requiring emission controls on new cars was not good enough. So they added the requirement that the car must be capable of maintaining that level of cleanliness to 100,000 miles!
In California, cars are required to be smog checked EVERY YEAR to get a license renewed. Because we are supposedly NOT a non attainment area, West Virginia NEVER smog checks cars or trucks, so many yahoos remove the certified exhaust systems and are non-compliant with the CARB and EPA requirements.
My point of reviewing this is to illustrate the results. In spite of industry rants and “jobs will be lost”, etc. etc., my wife’s 2009 Cadillac is 98% cleaner in its emissions, is guaranteed for 100,000 miles, has a 6 year warranty, and on trips to Ontario, gets 27.0 mpg...and averages over 20 mpg in and around WV! That is an example of the value of an environmental agency pushing the technological envelope, can and does result with no financial injury to industry players who step up to the challenge that the regulations demand...instead of wasting money on lawyers and P.R. campaigns like “Clean Coal”!
And I have another case I could detail...one that I was professionally involved with, in which the SCAQMD* in Los Angeles wrote a rule demanding that, “in five years”, all architectural coatings and furniture coatings applied in California must be free of V.O.C.s! No such coatings existed. But a small coatings company figured out how to produce such a coating materials, base, and finish coatings, with in four years, so we have water based ZERO V.O.C. coatings today! Technology being pushed by the rule making authorities!, (*South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1 of 9 in the State)
Hope this helps. As most of you know, I am not known for my short answers!
Attached are two op-ed/letters I wrote, but have not submitted...probably won’t
Allan
From: James Kotcon Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:52 PM To: WV Chapter Energy Committee ; 'Jim Sconyers' Cc: Bill Price ; daniel.chiotos@gmail.com Subject: [EC] Op/Ed on EPA Carbon rules
As you should know by now, EPA announced new rules for carbon emissions from power plants yesterday, and the response by politicians in West Virginia was pretty pro-coal.
Here is an Op/Ed I put together in response to yesterday's carbon rule. Please send me any feedback, as I would like to get a response out soon.
Jim Kotcon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Hey Jim,
I've gotta run out the door - but I read the Op Ed and my basic thought is that there's good content in here but it should be more grounded in making a case for our economic, health and climate argument rather than taking apart the arguments of WV politicians. With limited words, there's the opportunity to expand on our argument, facts, and vision that gets taken up by dismantling the WV politician argument (I think it's good to briefly mention their argument and its obvious deficiencies, but that the majority of the op ed should be spent on making the case for our own argument).
Anyways, glad this is written and came together - really important to get out there!
-Danny
On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Allan Tweddle allantweddle@msn.comwrote:
Jim
Good summary of the shortcomings of the political leaders, but I would add or emphasize two things.
First I would really stress that the price of coal is so artificial because the external costs of environmental damage, health cost impact and the rapidly increasing cost of climate change should be attributed to cost of coal. Superstorm Sandy” is just the tip of the iceberg...that is melting. And the truth be known, we are paying more for the “cheap electricity” when you add all the legacy costs of health care, environmental damage and now the horrific and mounting costs to all taxpayers for the damage due to climate change.
Let me recall for you the case history that proves this quite emphatically, and is near by and recent.
In 2005, in my native home, the Province of Ontario’s then Premier, (equal to our Governor), asked “why are the health care costs so much higher in the downwind air shed areas of all our coal fired power plants?” He asked the question because BOTH the cost of health care AND the cost of power generation and distribution are in the Provincial budget.
They do not have any “private” publicly traded power companies...they are “Crown Corporations” owned by the taxpayers. In addition, they have this “horrible” and “socialistic” concept in place call single payer universal health care...everybody is covered, and it is paid from income taxes.
The premier asked them to study the facts he was seeing, and after two years of an independent analysis, concluded that when the cost of health care directly attributable to emissions from coal fired power plants were added to the cost of coal, the real cost was higher than available renewable energy. So the Province announced a plan to shut down all coal fired power plants, and that was intended to be completed last fall...although I am told there are a couple of plants that will survive till 2014.
They have replaced those plants with added solar and wind generation. They also have a F.I.T. program. And they have been able to reduce by a small amount electric utility rates.
Now to be sure, there is controversy over it all, and debates still rage about the wisdom of the plan, but the point is, because the Province has BOTH health care and electric generation in the Provincial budget, they looked at the total, whole and real cost of coal, and decided they would be better off budget wise, let alone environmentally, by killing coal in Ontario.
And the impact on WV? The “Crown Corporation” power companies of Ontario WERE one of Arch Coal’s biggest customers!
The politicians here are not taking anything close to that pragmatic and realistic an approach. They are certainly ONLY protecting their source of election funding: the profits of the coal companies. And of course, there will be a loss of severance taxes from coal as it continues to decline. But the effort Ted Boettner, Jeff Kessler and other Legislators are spelling out for finally getting a real rainy day fund going will help.
The argument that jobs are at stake is deceptive at best. Yes, as mines close, those individuals need alternative sources of income. But it is quite clear from the economies around the world, especially those that have a F.I.T. programs, that renewable energy will create more jobs in those clean industries, than will be lost by closing mines. Miners could be retrained into safe and healthy jobs instead of black lung jobs...(remembering that as a result of the autopsies, we learned that 75% of the miners that died in the Upper Big Branch explosion had black lung disease)
Diversifying the State’s economy should be a top priority. And getting wind, solar and other renewable energy products manufactured in West Virginia should be at the top of the list.
Did you know that there is a silicon refining facility just up river from Montgomery WV that ships huge cakes of silicon to solar cell manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies...out of State? There is plenty of room on that property for a PV manufacturing operation, but try as I did, I could not get anyone in the Department of Commerce, starting with Jeff Heroldt and the PEA to pursue getting a manufacturing plant there. I was told “off the record” that [promoting any such plant would be too “anti coal”!
Then of course, if and when the WV market is sufficiently incentivized with net metering and a F.I.T. program, *to level the playing field, *installation jobs would be created. What’s more, important...the profits of the coal companies or retraining miner for new clean jobs.
Secondly, there is ample precedent for EPA’s approach that sets rules that will spur innovation. I often use the example of the automobile. In the mid 60’s, when cars like my fathers came with a 4000 mile warranty that was for only good for 90 days, and they got 12 mpg., and were emitting tons of pollutants, the California Air Resources Board (CARB), started the process of *enacting technology driving rules to force the manufacturers to clean up the emissions,* including fugitive crankcase and fueling. They did so when the technology was unknown and so the industry screamed, it would destroy their business and no one could afford the cars with emission controls etc. etc. None of that came true.
As CARB’s rules went into effect, they saw how they could be improved even more. They realized that requiring emission controls on new cars was not good enough. So they added the requirement that the car must be capable of maintaining that level of cleanliness to 100,000 miles!
In California, cars are required to be smog checked EVERY YEAR to get a license renewed. Because we are supposedly NOT a non attainment area, West Virginia NEVER smog checks cars or trucks, so many yahoos remove the certified exhaust systems and are non-compliant with the CARB and EPA requirements.
My point of reviewing this is to illustrate the results. In spite of industry rants and “jobs will be lost”, etc. etc., my wife’s 2009 Cadillac is 98% cleaner in its emissions, is guaranteed for 100,000 miles, has a 6 year warranty, and on trips to Ontario, gets 27.0 mpg...and averages over 20 mpg in and around WV! That is an example of the value of an environmental agency *pushing the technological envelope,* can and does result with no financial injury to industry players who step up to the challenge that the regulations demand...instead of wasting money on lawyers and P.R. campaigns like “Clean Coal”!
And I have another case I could detail...one that I was professionally involved with, in which the SCAQMD* in Los Angeles wrote a rule demanding that, “in five years”, all architectural coatings and furniture coatings applied in California must be free of V.O.C.s! No such coatings existed. But a small coatings company figured out how to produce such a coating materials, base, and finish coatings, with in four years, so we have water based ZERO V.O.C. coatings today! Technology being pushed by the rule making authorities!, (*South Coast Air Quality Management District, 1 of 9 in the State)
Hope this helps. As most of you know, I am not known for my short answers!
Attached are two op-ed/letters I wrote, but have not submitted...probably won’t
Allan
*From:* James Kotcon jkotcon@wvu.edu *Sent:* Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:52 PM *To:* WV Chapter Energy Committee EC@osenergy.org ; 'Jim Sconyers'jimscon@gmail.com *Cc:* Bill Price bill.price@sierraclub.org ; daniel.chiotos@gmail.com *Subject:* [EC] Op/Ed on EPA Carbon rules
As you should know by now, EPA announced new rules for carbon emissions from power plants yesterday, and the response by politicians in West Virginia was pretty pro-coal.
Here is an Op/Ed I put together in response to yesterday's carbon rule. Please send me any feedback, as I would like to get a response out soon.
Jim Kotcon
EC mailing list EC@osenergy.org http://osenergy.org/mailman/listinfo/ec
Jim, I think your oped is great. I wish it could be long enough to include Allan's information about the positive alternatives, but I think it is important to make the statement that our "leaders" from both political parties are lying. I changed my registration to the Mountain Party, and I think nothing is going to change until we can develop a viable third party.
From: ec-bounces@osenergy.org [mailto:ec-bounces@osenergy.org] On Behalf Of James Kotcon Sent: Saturday, September 21, 2013 1:52 PM To: WV Chapter Energy Committee; 'Jim Sconyers' Cc: Bill Price; daniel.chiotos@gmail.com Subject: [EC] Op/Ed on EPA Carbon rules
As you should know by now, EPA announced new rules for carbon emissions from power plants yesterday, and the response by politicians in West Virginia was pretty pro-coal.
Here is an Op/Ed I put together in response to yesterday's carbon rule. Please send me any feedback, as I would like to get a response out soon.
Jim Kotcon
_____
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3408 / Virus Database: 3222/6687 - Release Date: 09/21/13
-
Allan Tweddle -
Beth Little -
Daniel Chiotos -
James Kotcon