The European Environment Agency published a report on the cost and toll of air pollution due to industrial facilities to the European Union last November.

The costs are staggering as the 10,000 facilities induced up to 102 and 169 billion euros in 2009 alone.

However, only a small number of these plants are responsible for the vast majority of this pollution. The EEA notes:

Fifty per cent of the total damage cost occurs as a result of emissions from just 191 or 2 % of the approximately 10 000 facilities that reported data for releases to air.

Three quarters of the total damage costs are caused by the emissions of 622 facilities — 6 % of the total number.

This proves that solving the problem of industrial air pollution could be relatively easy.

The energy sector is the most polluting one as it is responsible for 66 to 112 billion euros of damages. Excluding carbon dioxide, the pollution still costs the 27 country members up to 26 to 71 billion euros.

Other sectors like production processes and manufacturing combustion are responsible for much less pollution, and thus much less induced: 23 to 28 billion euros and 8 to 21 billion euros respectively.

Meanwhile, the report notes that carbon dioxide contributes the most to the overall damage costs with approximately 63 billion euros in 2009. But this is not enough:

Air pollutants, which contribute to acid rain and can cause respiratory problems – sulphur dioxide (SO₂), ammonia (NH₃), particulate matter (PM₁₀) and nitrogen oxides (NO_x) – were found to cause €38-105 billion of damage a year.

The bottom line: the European Union needs to change the way it is producing electricity and to improve its few remaining plants to get much cleaner air.

Related posts:

• Europe Calls for $73 Billion in Energy Research
• Renewable Energy Use in Europe Continues to Grow Rapidly
• European Union Biodiesel Production Slumps in 2011
• EU Carbon Trading Scheme Led to ‘Dash for Coal’ in Germany, Study Says
• Many European Nations Have Carbon Vehicle Tax, Promote Electric Cars

California regulators are expected to pass new rules today requiring that 15 percent of all new cars sold by 2025 be powered by electricity, hydrogen, or other reduced-emission sources.

The new rules proposed by the California Air Resources Board would also require a 75-percent reduction in smog-creating emissions from new cars, SUVS, pickups and minivans, and a 50-percent reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2025.

According to the board, the initiative would put about 1.4 million low-emission vehicles on California roads by 2025, compared with current levels of about 10,000. They predict the new rules will add about $1,900 to the price of a new car, but will save about $5,900 in fuel costs during the life of the vehicle.

“This is a really large step. It’s transformational,” Tom Cackette, chief deputy director of the board, told the San Jose Mercury News. “Ten years from now the market is going to look quite a bit different.” The new standards will be introduced in 2018 and gradually strengthened over the next seven years.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Focus on Fuel Economy Would Boost Profits for U.S. Car Makers
• How Much Will Consumers Pay for EVs?
• Wireless Charging for Electric Vehicles
• Electric Car Made of Hemp Is Developed by Canadian Collaborative
• California’s Car Rules Help Remake U.S. Auto Industry

When one thinks of cruise ships, one thinks of grand luxury, solitude, safety, and big. The January 13 capsizing of the Concordia off the coast of Italy, in which at least 11 people died, caught the world — including the cruise ship industry and its passengers — off guard and is shining a spotlight on cruise ship safety and environmental issues. The cruise ship hit a reef and nearly hit their fuel tanks. There was also concern over how the passengers were evacuated in this disaster. Beyond that there are other environmental concerns such as cruise ships air emissions and sanitary waste discharges.

It was only luck that the ship’s oil is not already spewing into the sea—the hole in the hull missed the fuel tanks by a few feet, according to reports.

However, there are “normal” emissions or discharges from cruise ships at all times.

According to EPA cruise ships were involved in 87 confirmed illegal discharge cases from 1993 to 1998. Most of these involved the accidental discharge of oil or related substances. A few of the 87 cases involved large numbers of illegal discharge incidents. In addition, 17 other alleged incidents were referred to countries where the cruise ships were registered because the incidents occurred outside U.S. waters or because jurisdiction could not be clearly ascertained.

What sort of waste discharges are there? EPA was petitioned to review and study these issues. The petitioner raised the following points:

Black Water (sewage): A typical cruise ship generates as much as 210,000 gallons during a one-week voyage.

Gray Water (shower, sink, and galley water): A typical cruise ship is estimated to generate up to one million gallons a week. The petition states that current Federal regulations do not restrict gray water discharges except in the Great Lakes, and that gray water may pose environmental impacts as great or greater than sewage.

Hazardous Waste (waste from dry cleaning, photo labs, paint, and maintenance chemicals, etc.)

Solid Waste (food waste, plastic, paper, wood, cardboard, cans, glass, etc.)

Oily Bilge Water: Cruise ships are estimated to generate up to 25,000 gallons on a one week voyage.

Then there are air emissions.

Cruise ships incinerate between 75% and 85% of garbage according to the EPA in its 2008 study, contributing to smog in coastal communities and on the ocean. They also release incinerator ash and sewage sludge — blobs of concentrated toxins from the bottom of waste treatment facilities — into the ocean. They contribute nutrients, metals, ammonia, pharmaceutical waste, chemical cleaners and detergent to deep marine environments from sewage treatment systems that either don’t work as planned or aren’t able to remove such substances, according to tests in Washington and Alaska, interviews with state officials, the EPA study, and information provided by the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary. It’s legal to discharge untreated sewage in most areas of the United States farther than three miles from shore. But if you are 4 miles out?

Cruise ships burn fuel, much of it a cheap grade, which will continue until new international fuel standards take effect in 2012. A 2005 study done by WashPIRG, a public interest advocacy group based in Washington, estimates a 3,000-passenger ship generates the air pollution equivalent of more than 12,000 cars in a single day.

Article by Andy Soos, appearing courtesy Environmental News Network.

Related posts:

• Could Boats Plug In to the Electricity Grid?
• Cruise Ship Industry Needs to Embrace Sustainability or Sink
• Solar Power to Cut Colossal Cruise Ship Emissions
• Seawater Scrubbing Technology Tested to Cut Emissions from Ocean Vessels
• Pickens Plan & Energy Policy Act Challenged By Earthjustice Suit

Go ahead — call me a hypocrite. I claim to be a cleantech venture capitalist yet I tell you here and now that I am not convinced of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change (aka global warming). And I will audaciously tell you that my convictions on climate change in no way run contrary to my strong belief in the need for a cleantech revolution.

Many supporters of clean technologies make it seem as though anthropogenic climate change is an absolute fact. To some of them anthropogenic climate change is almost like a religion where any debate or doubt is not tolerated. Some of them may call me a heretic just for writing this post.

At the same time, those on the other end of the spectrum are equally religious in their fervor and certainty that anthropogenic global warming is a fraud. They are certain that human emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse” gases could never impact our climate. And they may twist this post to use it as yet another data point against claims of global warming and added rationale to do nothing except increase fossil fuel exploration.

In both groups, it is my perception that most have read little about the topic other than the popular press. And I find both groups equally sad in their myopic viewpoints. If both of these camps would open their eyes, I suspect there would be much greater agreement on the need for action on clean technologies rather than the divisiveness that their polarizing views create.

There are solid scientific theories and extensive data, anchored by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report, that indicate the possibility that over time man-made emissions of greenhouse gases could impact the global climate and may have already begun to do so. To dismiss them out of hand because there is some reasonable doubt is irrational.

Similarly, to speak about anthropogenic climate change as a certainty or to claim that there is no disagreement among scientist is simply incorrect. There are large numbers of reputable climate scientists who remain unconvinced. The reality is that all predictions of global warming are based on very complex climate models. We can forecast the weather a few days out with reasonable accuracy but if you try predicting next year’s summer temperature — let alone long-term global climate conditions — things fall apart quickly. Long-term climate models are anything but accurate.

We know with certainty that past natural occurrences have caused significant changes to the atmosphere, resulting in climate changes. So, there is little question about whether changes in the atmosphere can cause climate changes. Rather, the question is whether man-made emissions are significant enough to cause a change on their own and to overcome the large natural forces on our climate that include sun spots, variations in the earth’s orbit, and volcanoes all of which have not been taken into account in forecasts of global warming.

Often there is a focus in the media on recent variations in climate as a source of evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Variations in climate over short periods of time are highly suspect as evidence. While most scientists seem to agree that there have been increased temperatures and other climate changes over the past century or so, what cannot be said with certainty is that the increased CO2 levels caused this as opposed natural climate change events that have and continue to happen regularly to our planet. Even the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which is the backbone of support for anthropogenic climate change, found that its confidence in human contribution to such measured weather events (e.g., temperature, severe storms, sea level, etc.) could be as low as 50% for most of the events and 66% for the others (pages 23 and 52 of the Technical Summary).

Climate change is measured over extremely long periods of time – not a few years or tens of years. Some of the best long-term data on historic CO2 concentrations and temperatures is derived from glacial ice core data that spans back 400,000 years. This data shows that the concentration levels of CO2 in the atmosphere today are strikingly more than 20% higher than any level measured in the past 400,000 years (See Figure 1). The recent rapid increase corresponds well with the industrial age and temperature variations are in high correlation with CO2 concentrations. This is hard data to ignore or simply write-off.

Figure 1 – Data from Vostok Ice Core (400,000 years)

Figure 2 –Estimated CO2 and Temperature Changes over 500+ Million Years

But interestingly over longer periods, the level of CO2 today is far below the estimated levels during many times in history (Figure 2) raising the possibility that the current spike may have other natural contributors. And the correlation between temperature and CO2 that seems so apparent in the 400,000-year ice core data becomes much less clear when looking over many millions of years.

While most scientists seem to believe that, in isolation, increased CO2 concentrations create an increased “greenhouse” effect whereby the CO2 acts like a blanket, preventing more of the heat radiated by the earth from going back into space, at what concentration level and over what time period remains a point of uncertainty and debate. In addition, how other factors that may occur with warming such as increased moisture and clouds as well as changes in absorption of CO2 into the ocean at varying temperatures will affect the warming dynamic and other climate change is much more uncertain.

The bottom line is that we won’t truly know if man has caused climate change until after it has already occurred for a very long period of time.

And that’s the rub. The theoretical costs to the human race of global warming are high: rising ocean levels, decreased polar ice, increased severe weather and significant changes in precipitation patterns. If they occurred to a significant degree, all could have sizeable economic and health implications. But there is no certainty that we will ever pay such a price. More compelling is what we know with near-certainty:

· Fossil fuels are a finite resource and they do pollute. Reduction of pollution is always a good thing. And with booming energy demand in China and India, fossil fuels are a resource that will become scarcer and more expensive. You can argue about the pace, but few argue that it will happen. Even oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia have begun to accept this fact.
· Increased sources of cost-effective energy and more energy-efficient consumption have and will continue to lead to increased standards of living.
· Nations with greater diversity of energy sources have greater economic and national security.
· The U.S. Defense Department believes that climate change will impact our national security.
· If anthropogenic global warming is real, by the time we start paying the price for the damage we have done it will be too late to turn things back quickly.

To claim with certainty that man is causing climate change or to claim there is no risk of anthropogenic climate change are equally incorrect and equally polarizing.

While it is not certain, there is evidence that suggests that human emissions of greenhouse gases may be changing our climate in ways that could have dramatic impacts. We can do nothing and roll the dice that everything can be OK. Or we can take steps to diversify our energy sources away from fossil fuels and increase our energy efficiency, thereby not only reducing the risk of anthropogenic climate change but also increasing the robustness of our economy and our national defense.

Although there should be debate about the specifics of how to best advance the availability and utilization of cleaner technologies, support for cleantech innovation should be the ultimate bipartisan issue without the divisiveness created by talking about anthropogenic climate change as if it is a fact or as if it is fiction.

David Gold heads up cleantech investments for Access Venture Partners. He is also the author of the GreenGoldBlog.

Related posts:

• A Shining Star of Bipartisan Cleantech Support
• Venezuela Strikes Up A Partnership with Portugal for Renewable Energy
• Got a Legal Question on Clean Tech or Renewable Energy Law?
• Accusations of Flawed Climate Science Rejected by the EPA
• Climate Change Skeptic Changes Stance and Calls for Action

On Dec. 16, the Obama administration is expected to finally release new standards for protecting us from mercury and other toxic heavy metals from power plant emissions. All of us have reason to be glad, but parents (and anyone who might ever want to be a parent) should especially welcome this long overdue protection. My wife Mary and I co-authored a column for Sierra magazine that explains why:

It started before we even brought our first child home from the hospital. Electrical sockets needed to be covered, cabinet doors secured, knives stowed out of the reach of tiny hands. We live in earthquake country, so we finally got around to bolting our bookshelves to the wall.

Like any parents, we’ll do anything in our power to keep our kids safe. We know that our power has its limits, but that doesn’t stop us from trying.

Getting the house ready was just the beginning. We were also determined to protect our daughter from less-obvious dangers. Well aware of the toxic chemicals that increasingly find their way into our bodies, we shopped for the healthiest foods we could find — and still do.

Of course, not all Americans have the same easy access to fresh, organic, and healthy foods that we do. In lots of neighborhoods it can be hard to find decent produce. But even so, you’d think there’d still be plenty of nutritious alternatives to fast food, like the humble tuna sandwich.

Not anymore. Tuna, like many types of fish, is often contaminated with mercury, a neurotoxin that damages the brain and nervous system, particularly in fetuses and young children. Mercury in the bloodstreams of pregnant and nursing women can result in birth defects like learning disabilities, reduced IQ, and cerebral palsy.

We’ve known about the dangers of mercury for a century. (It’s what made the Mad Hatter mad.) We’ve also known how the fish get contaminated: primarily via coal-fired power plants, whose smokestacks spew almost 50 tons of mercury annually into the air we breathe.

A heavy metal like mercury does not stay in the atmosphere for long. It eventually falls to Earth, inexorably working its way up the food chain until it winds up in the tuna sandwich in some kid’s lunch box — or on the sushi platter ordered by a young woman who’s just become pregnant.

And that’s where we get mad — both as environmentalists and as parents: There is absolutely no reason our kids should be exposed to this poison. The EPA was first charged with limiting toxic air pollutants like mercury more than 20 years ago, during the George H. W. Bush administration. The technology to filter mercury from coal-plant smokestacks is widely available. But there’s still no national limit on how much mercury a coal-fired power plant can release into the air. It’s like debating what kind of childproof latches to put on the cabinets while the kids are playing with the knives.

This past March, the EPA finally proposed a standard that would require coal plants to keep more than 90 percent of their mercury emissions out of the atmosphere. The new rule would also apply to such cancer-causing metals as arsenic, chromium, and nickel. Filtering out these poisons would prevent hundreds of thousands of illnesses and up to 17,000 premature deaths each year. It would be the single biggest measure to save American lives in a generation.

Incredibly, it might not happen. As we write this, the EPA is under attack by politicians whose first allegiance is not to American children but to the polluters who don’t want to clean up their dirty power plants. Possible reason: The polluters shelled out nearly $30 million to these members of Congress who continue to vote for dirty air.

We know that it’s impossible to protect our children from every possible harm. Inevitably, knees will get scraped and probing fingers will get pinched in cabinet doors, and that giant leap off the porch might end in a tumble. But to endanger our kids solely for the sake of polluters’ bottom line? As parents, and as Americans, that’s something we can never accept.

Article by Michael Brune, appearing courtesy ecopolitology.

Related posts:

• Mercury rising, controls next
• We Can Clean the Air, Create Jobs and Power the Economy at the Same Time
• Protecting Historic Progress on Clean Air
• EPA Proposes Transport Rule to Aid Downwind States
• EPA Finalizes Greenhouse Gas Reporting Requirements

A coal-powered plant in West Yorkshire has launched the UK’s largest carbon capture initiative, a pilot project expected to siphon off about 100 tons of carbon dioxide daily.

The equipment, which was added to the 200-megawatt Ferrybridge Power Station, will capture only 2.5 percent of the plant’s total emissions, but is a sign of some progress in a carbon capture and sequestration industry that has endured setbacks this year.

The project will not attempt to store the carbon, but instead test the CO2 scrubbing, or removal, phase of the process. Proponents hope it will represent a bridge between smaller-scale pilot projects and commercially viable CO2-capture technology.

UK officials this week postponed the investment of £1 billion into a full-scale pilot project, and earlier this year the most ambitious carbon-capture project at a U.S. coal-fired plant was shelved because of a lack of climate legislation and state support.

While carbon-capture technology is in its early stages — and remains cost-prohibitive on a commercial scale — advocates say it could become a critical option in reducing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Key CO2 Capture Project Is Suspended by Major U.S. Utility
• U.S. Carbon Capture Projects Selected for Further Development
• Improved CO2 Capture Methods Are Investigated
• Carbon Storage Projects Expanded in 2010 Despite Economic Challenges
• ‘Moonlanding’ Carbon Capture Project Delayed in Norway

Emerson is a “diversified global manufacturing and technology company.” Emerson offers a large variety of services and products in the consumer, commercial and industrial markets via network power, industrial automation, process management, tools and storage, and climate technologies. Because of what Emerson does, it does a lot for the clean technology industry.

1 ) Emerson Process Management offers the best kind of wireless technology possible that allows businesses to monitor their safety equipment, including eyewash stations, so action can be taken much sooner if an incident were to occur. The products and services Emerson Process Management offers also assists in minimizing hazard, clean-up and expense of environmental releases through the process of providing quick notification and accurate logging of all environmental excursions, including monitor safety showers, environmental compliance, and accurately measure all emissions.

2 ) Emerson Network Power has designed capabilities that are able to deliver reliable power, connectivity, precision cooling, and embedded solutions. Their innovative solutions allow businesses to check and monitor all their IT centers. However, other products allow businesses to check things such as their overall energy consumption. These tools assist businesses in determining how much energy they are using so they can look for ways to decrease energy consumption.

3 ) Emerson Industrial Automation is concerned with sustainability and looks to help drive sustainability in the market. For example, for over 20 years S SB Wind Systems has been one of the top providers of pitch-control systems, software and services for wind turbines, and switch and control cabinets. These products offer the industry advanced safety features, greatest dependability, and highest energy output. JAURE, in another example, supplies the couplings used to transmit rotational force from wind turbine blades to generating equipment. To convert natural sources of energy into viable electricity, Control Techniques supplies grid tie inverters utilized in a majority of large-scale photovoltaic power plants around the world.

4 ) Emerson Solutions Assists Customers Convert Biomass to Low-Cost Energy. It is helping a number of municipalities and companies convert their waste and biomass into efficient and reliable renewable energy along with much lower carbon emissions. “Biomass-to-energy conversion is the fastest-growing segment of the energy business,” said Steve Sonnenberg, president of Emerson Process Management. “Faced with high energy costs and environmental goals, our customers recognize they can retrofit decades-old plants to convert their own waste streams into environmentally friendly and low-cost sources of power, which is a plus to both the environment and their bottom line.”

5 ) Emerson Global Data Center Receives Dramatic Energy Efficiency Gains. Emerson’s Global Data Center at its headquarters has posted very good remarkable energy efficiency and availability metrics since opening in 2009. Emerson closed a number of large data centers and posted it all to their campus. It has assisted Emerson in reducing power consumption by over 50 percent. As well, the center boasts a 7,800 square-foot rooftop solar array that produced an average of 14,250 kilowatt hours every month. “The stellar operation of our new data center in its first year is a testament to the supreme planning that went into its design and the innovative, can-do spirit of the team that manages its operation,” said Kathy McElligott, vice president and chief information officer, Emerson. “Although there have been times when the utility power went out or some other type of power issue occurred, the data center and the Emerson technologies within it responded exactly as designed. The Liebert uninterruptible power supply systems, ASCO power transfer switches, and other Emerson Network Power technologies performed flawlessly, enabling the center to be always on.”

6 ) Solar Power. Emerson is looking to capture and convert the sun’s energy in a more efficient manner. For example, Emerson Industrial Automation designs as well as manufactures tracking systems to ensure solar arrays are completely positioned to get maximum exposure of the sun. Emerson also designs a number of “ready to run” solar e-houses, which are pre-built steel or concrete shelters used for switchgear, transformers, inverters and other equipment that needs to be transported as well as installed at any solar site. As well, Emerson Process Management is one of the main providers of process control systems utilized by utility-scale solar providers.

7 ) Wind Power. Emerson is known for providing the technologies necessary for commercial wind turbine manufacturers since the 1980s. Emerson Industrial Automation is a major international leader in the development of intelligent controls and pitch drives for the wind turbine industry. Emerson Network Power is known for developing wind turbine converters that are specially designed for the wind farm industry in China and its power grid.

8 ) Emerson Process Management Signs Global Agreement with SHEC Energy. This new agreement brings solar thermal power plants online. The advanced automation services provided by Emerson were chosen by SHEC Energy to increase overall efficiency and reliability of new renewable energy projects throughout the globe as well as assist the company in reducing the cost of power generated from the projects to become competitive. The president of Emerson Process Management, Steve Sonnenbert, said that the partnership between SHEC Energy and Emerson will allow the company to expand in a much more sustainable manner throughout the solar generation industry.

9 ) Emerson Electric Goes for Smart Data Centers. Emerson Electric is looking to introduce a new technology in 2011 called Trellis. Trellis enables companies to reduce their energy bills and infrastructure spending as well as better allocate the staff that manages everything. Trellis looks to make hardware smarter, like allowing company managers to be alerted before data loss or broken connections, providing the ability for data centers to spend less money on energy and components.

10 ) Emerson Supplies Automation Technology for Biomass Boiler in Poland. In August 2011, Emerson Process Management supplied the automation technology for a biomass boiler that is currently under construction in Polaniec Power Station in Poland. The 190 megawatt biomass-fired circulating fluidized-bed will provide effective carbon dioxide emissions reduction.

Article by Shawn Lesser, Co-founder & Managing Partner of Atlanta-based Watershed Capital Group – an investment bank assisting sustainable fund and companies raise capital, perform acquisitions, and in other strategic financial decisions. He is also a Co-founder of the GCCA Global Cleantech Cluster Association ”The Global Voice of Cleantech”. He writes for various cleantech publications and is known as the David Letterman of Cleantech for his “Top 10″ series. He can be reached at shawn@watershedcapital.com

Related posts:

• Coming Attractions: CleanTechies Events Highlights
• The Bull is Bullish on CleanTech… So?
• Fuel Cell Startup EnStorage Raises $15M Series B Financing
• Obama’s win: Bright future for CleanTech?
• ‘No More Nuclear’ Germany Will Maintain its Cleantech Edge

The increased use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) in the production of refrigerators, air conditioners, and other products could play a significant role in accelerating global warming, a new UN report warns.

Without stricter regulations, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) report says, the projected emissions of HFCs by 2050 could equal pouring nearly 9 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — or about one-third of current CO2 emissions.

While introduced in the 1990s to replace ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HFCs are also potent greenhouse gases — about 1,600 times more powerful in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.

And with the increase in world population and the continued growth of emerging economies, annual consumption of HFCs has doubled over the last decade to about 400,000 tons, according to the UNEP report.

The most common type of HFC increased 10 percent annually from 2006 to 2010. “Without intervention, the increase in HFC emissions is projected to offset much of the climate benefit achieved by the earlier reduction in [ozone-depleting substances],” the report says.

Article appearing courtesy Yale Environment 360.

Related posts:

• Rising Use of Refrigerants Poses Severe Global Warming Threat
• China, India and Brazil Block Effort to Use Ozone Treaty for Climate Protection
• Stratospheric Pollution Is Slowing Global Warming, Study Says
• Concern About Global Warming Continues to Drop, Poll Shows
• Climate Change Skeptic Changes Stance and Calls for Action

Energy Results’ online home energy self-assessment tools will be used in the new Best Buy Home Energy concept, the company recently announced. The partnership is designed to help customers better understand energy efficiency products and solutions to save money and emissions.

The educational tools will provide homeowners with a personalized home efficiency plan that helps them evaluate recommended upgrades based on savings potential, environmental benefits and other benefits like improved home comfort and air quality.

The Best Buy Home Energy concept is also available from departments located within three Best Buy stores in Chicago, Houston, and San Carlos, California. These departments will provide unique services including self-assessment tools, home energy survey and audits, and product installation.

“We’re very excited to partner with an industry leader like Best Buy to help homeowners take advantage of home efficiency opportunities,” said Energy Results’ CEO, Jason Blumberg. “The new home efficiency platform will not only make smart home improvements easier to understand, but it will also help customers take action to capture savings – bridging the gap between education and action.”

Related posts:

• 22 Regions Across America Race to the Rooftop for Solar Power
• A CleanTech Venture Capitalist’s thoughts…
• NASA Contest Heralds Dawn of the Electric Plane
• Being Green, One Block at a Time
• Sustainable Building: Win Up to $5M in Greener House Contest

Editor’s Note: This blog introduces readers to Ralph Izzo, Chairman, President and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group.

As one of the largest electricity generators in the U.S., we, at Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), believe that EPA’s air pollutant regulations should be viewed as an opportunity to modernize the nation’s electric power infrastructure. PSEG has been a long-time advocate of these Clean Air Act regulations and has put its money where its mouth is, investing over one and a half billion dollars in improvements to its coal-fired plants. These regulations will not only improve air quality for our nation’s citizens, but will also create jobs and an active marketplace for emissions trading.

Frankly, action is long overdue. The air pollutant regulations proposed by EPA are in response to the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of two rules (the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and the Clean Air Mercury Rule) originally proposed by the Bush Administration. Thus, these regulations do not come out of the blue. The regulatory process for regulating toxic air emissions commenced over two decades ago, and the court concluded CAIR was “fundamentally flawed” in 2008.

For our part at PSEG, we believed it made good business sense to be proactive in positioning our generation fleet to meet what the rules would require.  During the past five years, we have invested more than $2 billion to replace inefficient, older generating units and upgrade our existing facilities in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. These air quality standards are achievable with the appropriate investment. For example, nearly 60 percent of all coal-fired boilers that submitted data to EPA are currently achieving the Utility Toxics Rule’s proposed mercury standards. Existing pollution control technologies have demonstrated their mettle, and they need to be further deployed throughout the nation.

Our experience shows that it is possible to clean the air, create jobs, and power the economy at the same time. For example, our New Jersey coal plants with their various pollution-control systems have been able to reduce, by over 90 percent, emissions of mercury, acid gases and soot. Installing the systems created approximately 1,600 construction jobs and enabled us to add dozens of full-time positions. We are proud of these results and proud to have facilities that are among the cleanest coal stations in America.

Reliability is a critical consideration at all times in the electric power industry. We believe our industry is capable of meeting these clean air rules while maintaining electric system reliability. The U.S. bulk power system, at an aggregate level, has adequate spare capacity to absorb potential retirements. Many of the uncontrolled units, which are most likely to retire, are smaller, inefficient units and companies are already making retirement decisions independent of the Utility Toxics Rule due to fundamental economics. Moreover, the electric industry has a proven track record of adding additional generating capacity and transmission solutions when and where needed and of coordinating effectively to address reliability concerns.

The Clean Air Act gives affected sources three years from the issuance of the final rules to comply with the regulations. Further, if there are isolated reliability issues in areas of heavy demand as a result of implementing the air regulations affecting the electric sector, existing risk management procedures under the Clean Air Act, the Federal Power Act, and other statutes already provide EPA, the Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the President with tools to address unforeseen impacts on electric system reliability on an individual basis.

Simply put, the time is overdue to implement the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Doing so will help provide much needed certainty to invest in capital-intensive projects such as power plants that operate for 40 years or longer. Having these regulations in place will make it clear what the energy industry needs to do. In contrast, any significant delay for these rules will only perpetuate uncertainty where clarity is needed. The time for action is now.

Ralph Izzo is Chairman, President and CEO of Public Service Enterprise Group

Photo: Mario’s planet

Article appearing courtesy White House Blog.

Related posts:

• How Many Jobs are Truly Created in a “Green Economy?”
• The Energy of Entrepreneurs
• Celeb Campaign Pushes Clean Energy Economy
• The Glass is More than Half Full: Impact of Clean Technology on Job Creation
• Film Industry Meets Ontario’s Solar Economy