Sentences with phrase «plant emissions caps»

[1] The resulting proposal was a market - based cap and trade approach which intended to legislate power plant emissions caps without specifying the specific methods used to reach those caps.

Not exact matches

Virginia's limit, or «cap,» on carbon dioxide emissions would tighten 30 percent between 2020 and 2030, while adding measures to maintain market stability with a reserve of credits that power plant owners can purchase to help them comply.

One recommendation by the alliance takes aim at Ontario government energy policy that could also double as climate policy, as the province has curtailed greenhouse gas emissions coming from the electricity sector by closing coal - fired power plants, invested in costly solar and wind energy projects, and instituted a cap - and - trade system that requires businesses to buy permits to cover their carbon emissions.

The bill aims to ameliorate these effects by allowing emitting plants to continue for a while by buying permits or allowances from other producers whose emissions are below their allowances — hence «cap and trade.»

Nine Mid-Atlantic and New England states have agreed to cut power plant greenhouse gas emissions across the region by 65 percent by 2030 through the nation's first cap - and - trade program to reduce carbon contributing to global climate change.

President Obama's plan for national standards to curb power plant emissions is based, in part, on a cap and trade type program already existence in New York.

Cuomo is calling for more offshore wind energy projects and new caps on carbon emissions from smaller power plants.

The governor highlighted the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative as one of the ways his administration will act, pushing for a more aggressive cap on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

Instead, they argue that Australia should base its climate policy on a carbon budget that sets an upper limit on the country's total emissions between now and 2050, institute a cap - and - trade scheme, consider closing selected coal - fired power plants, and ramp up renewable energy.

As a result, the NRDC, the EDF, the Clean Air Task Force and other groups support both a cap - and - trade scheme to limit CO2 emissions as well as subsidies for the first CCS coal - fired power plants to be built.

SaskPower decided to retrofit its plant in part to satisfy Canadian regulations that will cap emissions from new and old units from 2015.

The RGGI program also might not actually curb emissions, because power plants are already emitting less than the proposed cap — due to take effect on January 1, 2009, and based on projections from 2005 — thanks to slower than anticipated growth in electricity generation.

On Tuesday, the governments of California and six other western states as well as four Canadian provinces proposed a new plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 15 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 using a similar cap - and - trade market — and would expand such regulations to encompass not just CO2 from power plants but also cars and trucks as well as other greenhouse gases, such as potent methane.

Also, the Clean Power Plan, proposed by the EPA in June 2014, seeks to cap carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and drive investment in renewable energy.

Those costs could come through taxes on emissions, caps on the amounts of emissions, bans on new coal - fired plants, or some combination of methods.

This scenario would change if there were a significant tax on carbon emissions, or if an equivalent economic penalty were imposed on fossil - fueled plants through a cap on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions or a requirement that CO2 be sequestered.

The take - home messages are that global warming legislation needs to cap CO2 emissions from power plants and include strong efficiency standards for building shells and the appliances and heating and cooling equipment inside them.

The ancient Chinese mask - changing dance that I saw here Tuesday night (at a dinner for participants in a meeting on science and sustainable development) came to mind in considering the unraveling of news a few hours earlier of an official Chinese plan for a firm cap on emissions of carbon dioxide, hard on the heels of President Obama's proposed carbon pollution rules for existing American power plants.

As signs grew that the Senate was in no mood to set up a trading system for curbing carbon dioxide emissions, as I noted how the climate policy debate had circled back lately to the emissions - capping plan for power plants that had been proposed in the 2000 Bush campaign for the presidency, I found myself thinking about the vacuum that's persisted where President Obama should have been on this issue (if he planned to live up to his campaign commitments).

The «emissions reductions» approach, including cap - and - trade systems and other economic incentive mechanisms as well as direct regulatory controls, will require power plants, cars, and many other GHG sources to become more «efficient» by cutting their discharges.

His critics show few signs of ever accommodating the ideas he now presses, which include a prompt moratorium on new coal - burning power plants until they can capture and store carbon dioxide and a rising tax on fuels contributing greenhouse - gas emissions, with the revenue passed back directly to citizens, avoiding the complexities of «cap and trade» bills.

My point is this: In my view, the Times should find out, and convey to the public (in one place and in organized fashion), the views of each and every Congressperson, and person running for Congress, regarding a moratorium on coal - fired power plants (until their carbon dioxide emissions can be eliminated), a carbon «cap - and - auction» or «cap - and - trade» system, or carbon tax, and related matters having to do with global warming.

[15] According to the press release, the agreement imposes caps on emissions of pollutants from 16 plants located in five states.

Yet RGGI hasn't induced a robust enough carbon price to drive down emissions, primarily because the initial emissions «cap» was set 45 % higher than actual emissions by the covered power plants and wasn't tightened enough to actually «bind» until four years later.

In June 1989, President George H. W. Bush proposed the use of a cap - and - trade system to cut by half sulfur dioxide emissions from coal - fired power plants and consequent acid rain.

The announcement gives the EPA a legal basis for capping emissions from major sources such as coal power plants, as well as cars.

The report finds that under a Paris - compliant cap for the EU - ETS, carbon prices would need to average $ 45 - $ 55 / tonne for a sustained period to drive coal and lignite power plants out of the market and keep emissions in line with the Paris Agreement, which seeks to limit temperature rise well below 2 ˚C of warming versus pre-industrial times.

These policies include emission trading («cap & trade»), carbon sequestration from power plants, and various costly schemes for developing alternative, «green» forms of energy.

Over months of contentious debate, while the Waxman - Markey bill and subsequent Senate action were being considered, millions of Americans were introduced for the first time to the phrase «cap and trade,» a regulatory approach that first came to prominence in the 1990s as the centerpiece of a national program to address the threat of acid rain by limiting emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), primarily from electric power plants.

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap and trade program has helped Northeast states reduce power plant GHG emissions 40 % over the past eight years.

They should extend RGGI's emissions cap from 2020 to 2030, adopt targets that ensure power plants continue to reduce emissions, and close loopholes that could undermine progress.

The plan announced by states in the RGGI cap - and - trade system — Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont — would further reduce power plant emissions by 30 percent between 2020 and 2030.

Under Brown, California has sought to scale back dirty power plants, reduce the number of gas - powered cars on the roads, and cut industrial greenhouse gas emissions through a cap - and - trade program that requires businesses to pay to pollute.

The state opted to use a cap - and - trade program to cut carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from refineries, factories, power plants and other facilities, an approach CBE and other environmental justice groups strongly oppose.

Under the landmark new rule, Washington businesses such as power plants, petroleum refiners and manufacturers of metal and cement, which are collectively responsible for two - thirds of carbon pollution in the state, are required to cap and reduce emissions starting in 2017.

But, expanding California's cap - and - trade program to enable polluters to buy REDD credits also harms Californians — overwhelmingly low - income communities and communities of color — those who live near the refineries, power plants, oil and gas extraction sites and other high - emission industries that are the main cause of local and global climate disruption

In an agreement announced on Feb. 26, 2007, TXU agreed to cancel 8 of its planned 11 new Texas coal - fired power plants as well as several new coal - fired plants in Pennsylvania and Virginia, back federal legislation to create a cap - and - trade system regulating CO2 emissions, and double spending on energy efficiency.

States can draw from a number of options, including joining or starting a cap - and - trade program, which sets limits on emissions, then allows for the purchase and sale of pollution permits; boosting their share of renewable energy in electricity generation; and tightening efficiency standards on plants and energy users.

Yet the Clean Power Plan takes a fairly new approach to regulating emissions by including solutions such as cap - and - trade programs that go far beyond power plants — the target of the rule.

John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace, said: «The EU needs to adopt a science - based cap on emissions, ditch plans for dirty new coal plants and nuclear power stations that will give tiny emission cuts at enormous and dangerous cost, end aviation expansion and ban wasteful products like incandescent lightbulbs.»

But Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California, who led the fight in the House to pass cap - and - trade legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions — only to see that bill die in the Senate — declared the EPA's proposed carbon pollution standards for new power plants «a breakthrough.»

Consequently, the research report calls for action: (1) to reform electricity markets so that low cost renewables are dispatched first; (2) to extend robust moratoriums on new coal power plants; (3) to cap longer - term coal consumption and emissions in the power sector in the context of carbon markets.

The rise in emissions is widely attributed to precious metal mining projects, coal fired power plants and melting polar ice caps.

As both the House and the Senate grapple with proposed carbon - cutting measures — carbon taxes and «cap - and - trade» schemes for big CO2 emitters such as coal - fired power plants; increased Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for cars, SUVs, and trucks; and mandatory set - asides for clean renewable energy in the mix of energy generation options — emissions from aircraft seem, at least for the time being, to have gone over the heads of most policymakers engaged in the rush to cut carbon emissions.

Massachusetts and nine other Northeast states are part of a landmark pact called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative that is designed to cap power plant emissions in 2009 and then gradually reduce them by 10 percent over the next decade.

# 36 Play the market... «In carbon - emissions trading, the government puts a cap on how much carbon an industry is allowed to emit from power plants, factories and cars.

A study from an economic, financial, and strategy consulting group says the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a multi-state program designed to cap emissions from power plants in the northeastern U.S., has generated $ 4 billion in net economic activity even as it has increased electricity prices in the region.

The agency will be imposing emissions caps on new and existing power plants across the country, which significantly hurts the coal industry.

The program only caps emissions from electric power plants.

According to a study last month, power plants across the RGGI region slashed their emissions by 23 percent from 2009 to 2011, thanks partly to cap and trade.