Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
3/20/2015
Coal producers concerned that the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon emissions standards for existing coal fired power plants will spell disaster for their industry should “embrace” carbon capture and storage technology, Rep. Jerry McNerney (D – Calif.) said during a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power this week. “I know that the coal producers are worried about this, but my advice to them is embrace carbon sequestration. Embrace it because coal is going to be reduced whether we like it or not but if we embrace carbon sequestration then we’ll be able to continue to use coal and keep those important American jobs,” McNerney said.
The regulations in question do not include CCS within their best system of emissions reductions, but do not preclude its inclusion in state’s action plans to reduce carbon emissions. The proposed regulations are due to be finalized mid-summer and will require states to develop action plans to meet EPA set state specific carbon emissions reductions goals.
The United States stands to benefit if it can cement its place as a leader in the challenge of combating climate change, McNerney stated. “We need to take action; we need to take it now. The longer we wait to take action on climate change the more expensive it’s going to be, the more damaging the effects of climate change are going to be so it’s incumbent on us to do something about it. The good news is that if the United States takes the lead, we’re going to be able to develop technology; we’re going to be able export materials. It’s going to be a win for the United States so we might as well embrace this now. Taking steps to curb carbon emissions will have beneficial impacts such as repairing and replacing aging infrastructure with very high efficiency infrastructure,” McNerney said.
GOP Lawmaker Says CCS Not Economically Feasible
Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) voiced concerns, though, that the technology is not currently economically feasible and thus regulations like those proposed by the EPA are premature. “The difference between some of the Clean Air Act and sulfur dioxide was that we had technology to do it. … We knew the cost. This committee’s been clear in our hearings that every process except for enhanced oil recovery in a small facility in Canada is not financially doable and the government’s invested and actually pulled out of the FutureGen 2.0 because it’s too expensive. This government has made a decision that they can’t do carbon sequestration,” Shimkus said.