RICHMOND, Va. – Faith leaders from Virginia and around the country convened in Washington D.C. on Thursday, to give statements to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in support of its first-ever proposed limits on carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants.

The EPA says power plants in the United States emit 2 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, an amount second only to China. The new limits would reduce that yearly total by an estimated 123 billion pounds. Trieste Lockwood, director of Virginia Interfaith Power & Light, was among those who testified at the hearing.

"We feel this is a good move in the right direction to protect our air quality for future generations, which is one of the reasons why the faith community is involved. It's just really time to take action – carbon pollution causes smog, which triggers a variety of respiratory problems, especially in children and the elderly."

While not everyone agrees about the need for government involvement and regulations, Rev. Paul McAllister with the Church of God, says the scientific evidence of the harmful effects of carbon pollution are clear. He points out that we already have the technology needed for the new plants, and sees pollution limits as a social justice issue.

"We are a vast country with many resources and this is the right thing to do, going forward. I am pleased that the EPA recognizes that it would not be very cost-effective to require older power plants to update their systems."

According to the Center for American Progress, some companies that have new coal-powered plants in the works are considering switching from coal to natural gas, which is cheaper and cleaner to produce.

If enacted, the new rule would limit new power plants to releasing no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per megawatt hour of power produced. The public comment period on the EPA carbon pollution rule ends on June 25.



get more stories like this via email

Conservation groups in Texas want the Environmental Protection Agency to continue its push for tighter restrictions on methane emissions at oil and gas well sites, especially in the Permian basin.

The group Environment Texas testified at recent EPA hearings. It cites flaring as a major concern, the process of burning methane into the air at well sites instead of capturing and using it.

Michael Lewis, a clean air and water advocate with Environment Texas, said flaring is not only damaging to the environment, but harmful to humans - especially those who are nearby.

"Methane, especially in Texas, causes health problems," he said. "If you live close to these sites, you have a higher rate of leukemia, higher rate of lymphoma, higher rate of cancer. It's not uncommon to see even radio-nucleotides, so literal radiation."

Lewis said wells are often located in economically disadvantaged areas where people have few options to avoid the pollution they emit. The EPA has also proposed rules to encourage oil companies to pursue recent advancements in methane-mitigation and leak-detection technology.

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, methane is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. But beyond emissions, advocates are also calling for stricter pipeline regulations.

In Texas, Lewis said, there are tens of thousands of miles of gas and oil pipeline, "much of which is still unregulated. And pipeline leaks. We don't have enough inspectors, we don't have people going out and checking them. Now, with some of our new equipment that's out there, such as drone monitoring, we can be checking this stuff."

The Environmental Defense Fund has said the EPA's proposal to tighten rules on emissions is a step in the right direction, the group wants to see stronger action to end pollution and reduce flaring.

Minnesota has surpassed the goals it set more than a decade ago for renewable-energy standards. But as the climate crisis grows larger, there's a push to adopt new goals supporters say will benefit the state in multiple ways.

The start of the legislative session saw Democratic leaders and clean-energy advocates revive calls for Minnesota to approve a plan for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040. The House version passed out of committee this week, and a Senate panel will soon take it up.

Michael Noble, executive director of the group Fresh Energy, said given the strides the state has already made in transitioning to sources such as wind and solar, meeting the revised goal should be achievable.

"Zero-carbon electricity sources are universally available and low cost," he said, "and our three largest utilities have already committed to get all of the carbon out of the electric supply. "

Companies such as Xcel Energy have carbon-free goals by 2050, but some on the utility side have expressed concern about reaching a higher standard while trying to balance energy demands and costs.

Supporters stress that relying on cleaner power sources will help control energy bills because they're cheaper to produce than coal-fired power. Beyond reducing emissions, backers are convinced this approach would lead to more jobs and innovation in Minnesota.

Gregg Mast, executive director of the group Clean Energy Economy Minnesota, said the plan provides flexibility by offering utilities "offramps" if they convey the need to reassess their contributions. He said that should put customers at ease about trying to achieve the 2040 goal while navigating volatile energy markets.

"Energy consumers should know that this will ensure that we continue to have clean, reliable and affordable energy," he said.

Noble said Minnesota doesn't want to lose ground in the global transition to clean energy.

"All 192 nations have now pledged to be net carbon neutral by the middle of the century," he said, "and this positions Minnesota to attract businesses and attract industries who want low-carbon, zero-carbon energy."

Experts are warning Colorado households utility bills currently making their way to mailboxes are likely to be even higher than the supersized bills people received for November's energy use.

Denise Stepto, chief communications officer for Energy Outreach Colorado, said as energy prices have remained stubbornly high, December brought an arctic blast and subzero temperatures right in time for winter holiday celebrations.

"This next bill, we think, is going to be the higher one, much higher," Stepto explained. "It was a holiday, so more people were gathered in a home, lights on, things cooking, everything going."

It is a problem, Stepto said, because many Coloradans may have already tapped one-time-only assistance through Energy Outreach Colorado and the state's Low-Income Energy Assistance Program.

Calls to Energy Outreach Colorado's Heat Help Line are up 43% compared with the same time period last year. The week ending Dec. 18, they received more than 16,000 calls, up from 9,000 the week before, which is the largest call volume in two years of tracking.

Stepto pointed to one call she fielded this week from a mother trying to get help for her veteran son with a disability who was struggling to afford his high energy bills. She pointed out there has been an increased sense of desperation, especially for fixed and low-income households.

Stepto worries higher-than-average utility bills, while not sustainable, are likely to continue through the winter months.

"People are not abusing their energy use," Stepto argued. "They're keeping their thermostat as low as they can. They're being energy wise, it's just the cost is the cost. So there's only so much that folks can do."

During the week ending Jan. 8, Energy Outreach Colorado released more than $473,000 to help 728 struggling households who applied for assistance to pay utility bills. People can still get help -- to make sure utilities are not disconnected, and connect with other programs for which they qualify -- by calling Energy Outreach Colorado's helpline: 866-432-8435.