Urgent Action Alert: Comment on EPA Clean Power Rule TODAY

The EPA "Clean Power Rule" discriminates against existing nuclear plants, currently almost 2/3rds of our clean electricity.


They are taking comments on this rule, due by tomorrow, and your input fighting this discrimination and supporting at least the equality for our current and future clean and emission free power is critical.  There are several ways to comment.

The easiest and quickest is to click here for the EPA email, which includes for you the proper subject line and the following two key points for you to edit.

Below is my letter which can be a template, you can copy and paste then edit significantly to give it your voice and signature.  Form letters by themselves are not as effective as personal letters.

These are the two key points to make for the Rule on nuclear equality:
  1. Treat existing plants equally by including 100% of their current output in the baseline CO2 calculation.
  2. Allow states with new plants under construction to count their clean energy generation toward their EPA emissions target.

--------------------------

Dear EPA,

The EPA "Clean Power Rule" discriminates against and hurts our country's supermajority source of carbon and emission free energy.  [Although a majority of the U.S. do not realize nuclear makes up almost 2/3rds our carbon free energy, the EPA should be a leader, an educator, and a supporter of our environment.  If our goal is to support the environment, this ruling must be changed.]

[EDIT THIS AND TELL ABOUT YOURSELF ETC: I am a mechanical engineer, a nuclear engineer from MIT, and also received a degree in economics, so I understand the value of technology as well as the effects of clean, reliable energy for the economy.  I am also an entrepreneur hoping to build emission and carbon free waste-burning generators using nuclear energy.  Our company was founded by a Forbes 30 under 30 recipient.  We want to live in a much more carbon free future, and our only hope for both our economy and our environment is to invest in and support nuclear.]

The rule as it is currently structured would almost entirely discount the clean energy contributions of our current nuclear energy facilities and effectively penalize states that have new plants under construction.  [How is it possible that the formula for calculating the “baseline” emissions profile of each state specifically excludes current nuclear plants?] The formula must treat plants equally and include 100% of their output in the baseline calculation.

The EPA language allows an arbitrary 5.8% credit toward compliance for maintaining current nuclear generating capacity. This means individual states that may choose to close existing nuclear plants need only replace 5.8% of the energy generated with clean sources to maintain the same level of compliance.  We know that 5.8% of 2/3rds of our clean energy is not good enough for our environment, and it's not good enough for our children or our air.

The Rule’s treatment of nuclear plants under construction is also unacceptable. Rather than rewarding states for their proactive efforts to decarbonize with new nuclear, the EPA includes the Vogtle, V.C. Summer and Watts Bar 2 projects in their respective states’ baseline calculation, thus requiring them to take additional measures to comply with the regulation beyond what they are already invested in.  This is hurtful to the economy and the environment-- studies have shown that investments outside of nuclear do not significantly contribute to carbon decline since most wind and solar plants MUST be co-located with natural gas plants due to intermittency.

This can only hurt states and new, cleaner, and safer nuclear technologies including ones capable of utilizing and eliminating our country's nuclear waste.  The Rule must count new construction clean energy production toward the EPA emission target.

We demand a change in the rule: for our environment and for our economy and for our future.

Signed,
[YOUR SIGNATURE, ADDRESS/CONTACT INFO, MEMBERSHIPS/QUALIFICATIONS]


3 comments

  1. Replies
    1. Thank you, Matt! We are looking to start more grassroots action alerts, hope you'll help out!

      Delete
  2. I am retired from the FERC, where I learned that the 2000..2001 electrical energy debacle, and swindle, was a result of the necessity of immediate response to peak electrical demands. Companies running gas turbines on idle, producing no power but able to respond in fractions of a second to demand spikes, could charge the distributors a fortune for such "spinning reserve".
    Nuclear power "routine maintenance", by increasing the risk of outage because it wasn't there, made fortunes for some generating companies, at the expense of the distributing companies.
    The only low carbon energy that does not aggravate such a problem, is nuclear. Dropouts of wind turbines and solar power generators look exactly like spikes in demand, except that they are more frequent.

    ReplyDelete

Only comments that intelligently add to the discussion will be allowed.