How Long to Read Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal

How Long Does it Take to Read Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal?

It takes the average reader and 34 minutes to read Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal by Jonathan L. Ramseur

Assuming a reading speed of 250 words per minute. Learn more

Description

In August 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed three actions in the "Affordable Clean Energy Rule" (ACE). First, EPA proposed to replace the Obama Administration's 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) with revised emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel steam electric generating units (EGUs), which are largely coal-fired units. Second, EPA proposed revised regulations to implement emission guidelines under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 111(d). Third, EPA proposed to modify an applicability determination for New Source Review (NSR), a CAA preconstruction permitting program for new and modified stationary sources. The first action stems from EPA's finding that the CPP exceeded EPA's statutory authority by using measures that applied to the power sector rather than measures carried out within an individual facility. In the ACE rule, EPA proposed to base the "best system of emission reduction" (BSER) for existing coal-fired EGUs on heat rate improvement (HRI) measures. EPA did not propose a BSER for other types of EGUs, such as natural gas combined cycle units. In addition, EPA did not establish a numeric performance standard as the agency did in the CPP. Instead, EPA proposed a list of "candidate technologies" of HRI measures that constitute the BSER. States would establish unit-specific performance standards based on this list and other unit-specific considerations. Second, EPA proposed to revise the general implementing regulations to clarify EPA's and states' roles under Section 111(d) based on the agency's current legal interpretation that states have broad discretion to establish emissions standards consistent with the BSER. The proposed changes would, among other things, revise definitions and lengthen the time for development and review of state plans. Third, EPA proposed to revise the NSR applicability test for EGUs. According to EPA, this would prevent NSR from discouraging the installation of energy-efficiency measures. EGUs that adopt HRI measures and operate more efficiently may be used for longer time periods, thereby increasing annual emissions and potentially triggering NSR. Under ACE, NSR would not be triggered if the EGU modification did not increase emissions on an hourly basis, even if the modification increases annual emissions. EPA estimated emission changes under multiple scenarios. EPA projected that power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) would increase under the ACE proposal compared to the CPP. EPA also projected that ACE would, in most scenarios, decrease CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions compared to a baseline without the CPP. Power sector emissions projections, comparing CPP and non-CPP scenarios, provide context for evaluating the potential impacts of the ACE proposal. The CO2 emission reduction differences between CPP and non-CPP scenarios are greater in the studies from earlier years. For example, a comparison between CPP and non-CPP scenarios from the past three Energy Information Administration analyses shows that the percentage difference has decreased from 16% (in 2016) to 8% (in 2018), reflecting the fact that many of the changes EPA expected to result from the CPP (i.e., natural gas and renewables replacing coal-fired units) have happened already due to market forces and other factors. Comparisons between modeling projections of electricity sector CO2 emissions should be made with caution, however, given potential differences in modeling assumptions about future economic conditions and underlying energy inputs (e.g., natural gas prices). EPA estimated that compared to the CPP, ACE would reduce compliance costs and yield lower emission reductions, thereby increasing climate-related damages and human health damages ("forgone benefits"). According to EPA, the estimated value of the forgone benefits would outweigh the compliance cost savings when replacing the CPP with ACE, yielding net costs.

How long is Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal?

Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal by Jonathan L. Ramseur is 34 pages long, and a total of 8,636 words.

This makes it 11% the length of the average book. It also has 11% more words than the average book.

How Long Does it Take to Read Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal Aloud?

The average oral reading speed is 183 words per minute. This means it takes and 47 minutes to read Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal aloud.

What Reading Level is Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal?

Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal is suitable for students ages 8 and up.

Note that there may be other factors that effect this rating besides length that are not factored in on this page. This may include things like complex language or sensitive topics not suitable for students of certain ages.

When deciding what to show young students always use your best judgement and consult a professional.

Where Can I Buy Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal?

Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal by Jonathan L. Ramseur is sold by several retailers and bookshops. However, Read Time works with Amazon to provide an easier way to purchase books.

To buy Epa's Affordable Clean Energy Proposal by Jonathan L. Ramseur on Amazon click the button below.