Sunday, October 2 2022 Sign In   |    Register

News Quick Search



Front Page
Power News
Today's News
Yesterday's News
Week of Sep 26
Week of Sep 19
Week of Sep 12
Week of Sep 05
Week of Aug 29
By Topic
By News Partner
Gas News
News Customization


Pro Plus(+)

Add on products to your professional subscription.
  • Energy Archive News

    Home > News > Power News > News Article

    Share by Email E-mail Printer Friendly Print

    WV v. EPA shows the need for climate action

    August 5, 2022 - My Take


      With all the news recently and all the controversy over the Supreme Courts other rulings, you might have missed West Virginia v. EPA. In the case, the Court invalidated the Clean Power Plan, a strategy once proposed by the EPA to set limits on emissions from polluting coal-burning power plants and encourage utilities to turn to clean energy. This decision, siding with fossil fuel corporations over EPA expert scientists, is out of step with the views of the overwhelming majority of the American people and will cause them real harm. The solution? We need legislators who are willing to support policies to limit emissions and invest in clean energy. Doing so will protect our planet and our health while creating local jobs and saving Americans money.

      Our dependence on coal-fired power plants costs us in multiple ways. Clean energy harnesses the wind and sun - free and abundant resources in the Midwest - rather than depending on importing fossil fuels from other states and even hostile nations. Electricity and gas prices have soared this summer, demonstrating the vulnerability of our prices to events half a world away. Building brand-new wind or solar capacity costs less than just operating even the cheapest active coal-fired power plants. The EPA's plan would have encouraged inefficient, polluting coal plants to transition to cheaper, renewable energy sources, allowing ratepayers to tap into savings from clean energy sources. The Supreme Court's decision will result in utility ratepayers in areas powered by coal paying more to prop up expensive, aging coal plants.

      The clean energy transition will also create numerous high-quality jobs here in our communities. Already, five times more full-time workers are employed in the clean energy sector than the fossil fuel industry, and the potential for job creation will only increase as we expand solar and wind capacity. The EPA's plan would have brought lower electricity bills for ratepayers, well-paying manufacturing and construction jobs, and profits for landowners with wind and solar farms on their property, all without any of the environmental degradation associated with coal.

      Coal-fired power plants emit large quantities of dangerous chemicals, polluting our environment and placing human lives at risk. These chemicals, produced as by-products during the coal burning process, seep into our environment and waterways, where they endanger human health.

      For instance, coal plants produce large quantities of mercury, a toxic metal that can damage the digestive and nervous systems even in small quantities and one that accounted for 35% of all toxic emissions in Minnesota in 2014. The risk to younger populations is so great that children in Wisconsin under the age of 15 are encouraged to restrict their intake of locally caught fish because the mercury concentration is too high in the state's waters. This is just one example of how the Court's decision has needlessly put lives at risk.

      Coal-fired power plants also emit large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — almost twice that of natural gas, and they account for 54% of emissions from electricity generation nationwide, according to the latest count.

      We've already seen the effects of those emissions across the Midwest. Wildfire smoke has choked our air, reducing air quality and affecting the health of the most vulnerable. In our cities, high-temperatures records have been repeatedly broken, costing money and lives. Dangerous flooding has overtopped our rivers and devastated nearby communities. Left unabated, these effects of climate change will only increase at great cost to our health, economy and our agricultural yields.

      Unfortunately, by handcuffing the EPA's regulatory authority, the Supreme Court makes it clear they oppose the global scientific consensus of climate change as an existential threat, and the concerns of a clear majority of the American people while siding with the nation's fossil fuel corporations who benefit financially. At a time when climate scientists are warning us that imminent reductions in greenhouse emissions are crucial for the health of our planet, six justices with no scientific background have stripped the regulatory authority of the agency best equipped to guide us to a healthier, cleaner future.

      If the recent news out of Washington is true — that climate provisions will not be included in the reconciliation package — it's imperative we elect political candidates in November who will prioritize transitioning away from fossil fuels. We must do so for the sake of the health of our families and our planet — not to mention our wallets. Once elected, our representatives must find the resolve to include ambitious clean energy provisions in legislation. We ignore the danger of the Supreme Court's shortsighted, overreaching decision at our own peril. Let's seize the moment to reduce our dependence on coal before time to act runs out.

      — Dr. James Boulter is a chemistry professor in UW-Eau Claire's Public Health and Environmental Studies department. He received a Ph.D. in analytical chemistry with an emphasis in atmospheric sciences from the University of Colorado-Boulder.


    Other Articles - Utility Business / General


       Home  -  Feedback  -  Contact Us  -  Safe Sender  -  About Energy Central   
    Copyright © 1996-2022 by CyberTech, Inc. All rights reserved.
    Energy Central® and Energy Central Professional® are registered trademarks of CyberTech, Incorporated. Data and information is provided for informational purposes only, and is not intended for trading purposes. CyberTech does not warrant that the information or services of Energy Central will meet any specific requirements; nor will it be error free or uninterrupted; nor shall CyberTech be liable for any indirect, incidental or consequential damages (including lost data, information or profits) sustained or incurred in connection with the use of, operation of, or inability to use Energy Central. Other terms of use may apply. Membership information is confidential and subject to our privacy agreement.