Energy commissioner wants public input on EPA air rules

While EPA thinks electricity is overrated, at least one energy regulator doesn’t.

Environment and Energy News PM reports,

A debate over whether new air pollution regulations could harm the electric grid demands more data and fewer sweeping allegations, a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member said today.

Philip Moeller, a Republican in his second term at FERC, said in an interview today he is circulating 22 questions to industry and the public for information about how new U.S. EPA rules might affect the electric grid.

The regulations will be the focus of a FERC technical conference Nov. 29-30.

Regulators, including an official from EPA, are expected to ask grid operators and energy companies at the conference whether they have sufficient tools and information to model plant retirements and protect the grid.

“By circulating these questions in advance, I hope to provide interested people with an opportunity to provide ‘hard’ and ‘real’ evidence of reliability problems,” Moeller said in a statement. “The debate over EPA and reliability is too often a debate lacking in substance, where one person might say this nation has a reliability problem and another person will say the opposite.”

Click for Moeller’s questions.

4 thoughts on “Energy commissioner wants public input on EPA air rules”

  1. My father was a systems engineer at a power station which ran the grid control computers in Australia.

    A total blackout was preferable to brownouts and surges – blackouts didnot cause as much damage as brownouts or surges.

    Wind and solar are subject to variations and require conventional power generation to prevent damage to the grid so in reality they are not and never will be “clean and green”. Many estimate wind and solar achieve the same reductions in emissions as a switch to gas from coal because of the NECESSITY to balance the uneven surges from these sources.

    Why do “greens” insist on non viable energy for all. If they want to sooth their conscience disconnect from the grid and live a third world existence.

  2. Window dressing pure and simple.
    They’ll get lots and lots of input and then go ahead and do what they wanted to anyway. duh.

  3. The IPCC was created by policians; the politician selected the IPCC lead authors and these authors control what science is included in the IPCC Assessment Reports; the politiicians select and elevate just 40 elite writers from some 1,250 authors who particapted in the writing of the fourth Scientific Report, who are responsible for synthesizing what conclusions were drawn in the creation of the Executive Summary for policy makers; and the policians negotiate line by line with the elite writers to determine the final product. Thus, the output of the IPCC is a political statement not a scientific statement. Added to corruption is the prominent role played by environmental advocated connected to the WWF, greenpeace and the EDF. Thus, the IPCC report is little more than political and environmental advocacy. Can such a group maintain the required scientific neutality to create an unbias answer.

    Can advocates, with agendas, examine highly uncertain, messy informatio

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.