Subscribe Register Login

Thursday, October 02, 2014, 12:01 a.m.
Top Picks - Mobile App

State utility knocks Obama emissions plan

By The Associated Press

This article was published June 2, 2014 at 3:24 p.m.

Plant Manager Carl Handley, right, describes the Flint Creek Power Plant in Gentry for several visitors during a 2012 plant tour. The Flint Creek plant is one of three coal-fired stations in Arkansas that are improving their environmental controls to reduce emissions.

LITTLE ROCK — An Arkansas electric cooperative says an Environmental Protection Agency plan to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants will reduce utility companies' use of coal in favor of more expensive fuels.

The Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation says it was disappointed by the implications of Monday's announcement by the Obama administration to cut carbon dioxide emissions from plants over the next 15 years.

The proposal suggests a cut of nearly 45 percent in emissions by 2030 for Arkansas, which derives nearly 44 percent of its energy from coal, according to EPA figures. Natural gas comes in second at 26 percent; nuclear power accounts for nearly 24 percent.

Environmentalists hailed the plan. Utilities say it could reduce the reliability of electric service and affect rates for customers.

Comments on: State utility knocks Obama emissions plan

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

Subscribe Register Login

You must login to make comments.

Displaying 1 - 10 of 66 total comments

Jump to last page >>

Dontcallmenames says... June 2, 2014 at 4:15 p.m.

I vote our state doesn't enforce this dictatorial decree. States are losing their rights more and more each month and neither one of candidates for governor will have the moxy to state up against this erosion of freedom.

( | suggest removal )

JerryDamerow says... June 2, 2014 at 4:58 p.m.

Need to watch the previous episode of Cosmos! The effects of climate change are truly frightening and we need to get our heads out of the sand and start focusing on the impact of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere on future generations. The immediate cost will be higher for us but the penalty on future generations will be enormous.

( | suggest removal )

txjohns says... June 2, 2014 at 8:03 p.m.

So, if memory serves right, this is now the FIRST EVER federal regulation to reduce global greenhouse emissions. We live in the future; we should have regulations and fuel sources that reflect that. Coal needs to be moved to the back burner.

( | suggest removal )

RonalFos says... June 2, 2014 at 8:14 p.m.

Coal is already being phased out by power companies because it is MORE EXPENSIVE than natural gas. Wind and solar costs per KWH are dropping like stones as new technologies are coming online. For every job lost in a dirty coal mine there will be a high paying renewable energy job created. These requirements will not cause a problem.

( | suggest removal )

Cope_of_Morrilton says... June 3, 2014 at 12:55 a.m.

Plant trees. If the sum total of our efforts result in less carbon gas then mankind wins. If we do not, nature will take care of the pestilence of mankind. If a farmer has a cow, he should have enough trees to counter their CO2. Individuals should plant trees as well as we exhale CO2 with each breath. Corporations are individuals says SCOTUS. They should plant enough trees to negate their CO2 and CO production. These are engineers. They went to school. They know better. They need to do better.

( | suggest removal )

Duhig says... June 3, 2014 at 8:16 a.m.

These are not edicts from the feds. They are simply proposed rules. Everyone has a chance to comment on them. he industry should and will propose changes in them Many comments willbeinsightfuland accepted.

Secondly, the proposal PROVIDES doe rhwe STATES to develop their own oplan as to how to reach the reduction goal.

( | suggest removal )

ThinkFree says... June 3, 2014 at 9:10 a.m.

I'll just quote this article in Forbes -
ww w.forbes.co m/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/
~
"Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists."

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... June 3, 2014 at 9:37 a.m.

Germany, Spain, Greece, Portugal, England, well all of the European Union have dumped this farce of human climate change hoax. But hey, do you thing the lame stream media would tell us that?

( | suggest removal )

DontDrinkDatKoolAid says... June 3, 2014 at 9:52 a.m.

ht tp://dailycaller.c om/2014/02/26/german-govt-report-get-rid-of-green-energy-subsidies/

( | suggest removal )

Populist says... June 3, 2014 at 10:30 a.m.

Think free. We've been over this debate before. Give me one big name of a scientist or professor of climatology who does not believe that the earth is getting warmer. Larry Bell is a professor of architecture at Univ. of Houston (which gets much of its funding from the oil industry). The best name I was given was somebody with a B.A. in weather from a mediocre Canadian college. All the scientists at the major universities believe we are melting--though they disagree as to how fast and what the ramifications are. Clean air is important for health reasons for humans--not just for global warming and polar bears.

( | suggest removal )

Click here to make a comment

To report abuse or misuse of this area please hit the "Suggest Removal" link in the comment to alert our online managers. Read our Terms of Use policy.

TOP JOBS

Search 952 jobs >

Top Picks - Mobile App
Arkansas Online