Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Tells the EPA Why Cutting the Clean Power Plan Is a Bad Move (theverge.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the makes-good-business-sense dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: Apple is pushing back against the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan. The company filed a public comment with the EPA today arguing that scrapping the policy, which calls for cutting power plant pollution, would dull the United States' competitive edge in the clean energy economy. The Clean Power Plan (or CPP) was finalized by the Obama administration, and it takes aim at power plants -- the number one carbon polluters in the U.S., according to the Obama-era EPA website. Had the CPP ever taken effect, it would have given power plants until the year 2030 to curb their carbon emissions by about 30 percent, a move that the Obama administration said could protect the environment, public health, and consumer's pocketbooks.

Apple's comment cites the economic advantages of supporting clean energy, including that it provides "corporate electricity buyers with a hedge against fuel price fluctuation." The price of solar and wind don't change like the price of oil, Apple's filing says. (It also notes that China is currently beating the U.S. in clean energy investments.) The company also says that regulating the grid's carbon emissions "power plant by power plant" won't work. It references its own experiences operating with 100 percent renewable energy here in the U.S. and the work of its subsidiary, Apple Energy LLC, which sells the excess electricity the company generates back to the grid. The electricity system is far too interconnected, the filing says, so "regulation should consider the dynamic and interconnected nature of how power is generated, sold and consumed." That's why it supports the clean power plan, which it says provides a nationwide framework for regulating electricity generation: "It is both needed and the smart thing to do."

49 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. This couldn't possibly matter less by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    half the reason Trump got elected was desperate coal miners. This is an utterly impotent gesture on Apple's part. He's got to do something to appease them or they're not going to come out to vote for him next election.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      half the reason Trump got elected was desperate coal miners.

      That would make one hell of a lot of coal miners.. I had no idea that many even existed, let alone were out of work. Or is this one of your made up comments?

    2. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That does not add up.
      How many voters do you have in the US?
      How many are coal miners or in any way related to the coal industry?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That would make one hell of a lot of coal miners.. I had no idea that many even existed, let alone were out of work. Or is this one of your made up comments

      Not the original poster but I decided to check this out.

      20 of the 25 states that produce coal in the US voted for Trump. That makes up 195 of the 306 electoral votes that he got (64% of them).

      Now you can't simply say that the only reason these states went Trump was because of coal, but Pennsylvania for example, previously went Democrat. They are the #4 top coal producing state in the country (as of 2014) and have 20 electoral votes.

      Was coal half the reason Trump got elected? Maybe not. Was it a large part? Possibly.

    4. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2

      It was A reason. It wasn't nearly half. He won West Virginia. Big fucking deal.

      Once the coal miners look around and realize nothing has really changed for the better for them, they might think twice.

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    5. Re: This couldn't possibly matter less by Type44Q · · Score: 1, Troll

      half the reason Trump got elected was desperate coal miners

      Uh... hate to break it to you but the brainwashed left might be onto something about the Russians, 'cause... there's no fucking way all twelve* of 'em voted him in without someone's help.

      *Note, I've spoken with far too many Trump supporters from virtually all cultures and background (albeit most of them with one thing in common: they tend to be successful) to subscribe to the belief that either the Russkies or some economically-desperate, asthmatic West Virginians were required to outvote that festering carcass of a dead sea cow better known as 'the Clinton Family Wearer-of-the-Pants.'

    6. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      States that once relied on mining are easy to sway by throwing a bone or two their way. Then other blue collar workers who feel overlooked think Trump is going to look out for them.

      Do not discount the gullibility of the average American voter.

      (I'm an American, fwiw).

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    7. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Hurray, we can finally bring back all those lost whaling jobs that dried up when people stopped wanting whale oil lamps in their houses!

    8. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The country is essentially split down the middle at 49% to 49%, when they can be bothered to vote. So it does not take much to sway a state and start shifting around electoral votes.

    9. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Not everybody who votes shows up to vote. And you don't need 100% of the vote in a state to get all of its electoral votes. You also don't need to sway the state very far because most of the states are in a statistical tie. So find 4 or 5 hotbutton issues, sway those voters with absurd claims, and you get more votes and more campaign donations. Then the more people pay attention to you, the more the media pays attention to you, which causes even more people to pay attention to you, etc.

    10. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      That does not add up. How many voters do you have in the US? How many are coal miners or in any way related to the coal industry?

      In the US . . . it's all coal miners . . . all the way down.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    11. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by dywolf · · Score: 1

      theres fewer than 100k people in the entire coal industry.
      less than half are actual miners.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by nomadic · · Score: 1

      How many coal miners though?

    13. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by Xarius · · Score: 1

      I made this same mistake in the UK when the Brexit vote happened....

      I thought "who would possibly vote for this nonsense" - I live in one of the 7 or so large cities in the country and mistakenly projected my experiences onto the population at large.

      I forgot about the other 60 - 70% of the country that lived outside of metropolitan areas, and didn't have a working understand of their wants, hopes, fears or perceptions.

      And now we're economically fucking ourselves over, I have taken the time to understand them and where they're coming from.

      --
      C17H21NO4
    14. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      That would make one hell of a lot of coal miners.. I had no idea that many even existed, let alone were out of work. Or is this one of your made up comments

      Not the original poster but I decided to check this out.

      20 of the 25 states that produce coal in the US voted for Trump. That makes up 195 of the 306 electoral votes that he got (64% of them).

      Now you can't simply say that the only reason these states went Trump was because of coal, but Pennsylvania for example, previously went Democrat. They are the #4 top coal producing state in the country (as of 2014) and have 20 electoral votes.

      Was coal half the reason Trump got elected? Maybe not. Was it a large part? Possibly.

      This shows how poorly the electorate and their representatives understand the US economy and job markets. Coal mining has been shedding jobs due to new methods of mining, e.g. mountain-top removal, ever bigger mining machines that require fewer operators, and increasing automation. Even if the US went crazy on coal and started building new coal power plants, it still wouldn't create many jobs. Those coal jobs are gone for good and they're not coming back. Ex-coal miners need new opportunities to find new jobs. How about retraining to work in the solar/wind power industry?

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
    15. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by tsa · · Score: 1

      Three.

      --

      -- Cheers!

    16. Re:This couldn't possibly matter less by VeryFluffyBunny · · Score: 1

      This practically exactly what Pres. Obama and Sec.Clinton said in their campaigns.

      Yes, empty promises. The Democrats track record since the 1980s (with Bill Clinton) has been one of serving and protecting Wall St. executives at the expense of everyone else.

      it's REALLY hard to retrain people into new fields like you suggest. Bordering on impossible.

      No, it isn't hard to train people who are already proficient at engineering jobs to do other engineering jobs. However, effecting and efficient training doesn't come cheap (I work in education and training and so read the current literature on these subjects). But then it's less expensive than the lost tax revenue from all those workers either not working or doing low-paid, unskilled labour. One of the problems with US post-secondary education and training is that they've been forced to do more with less for so long that many programmes are producing graduates who aren't much use to anyone.

      If the clean power "investments" are beneficial to companies, and consumers, and are profitable, as Apple claims, then everyone involved from end to end *would already be choosing to do them, absent regulation*.

      Yes, they are, and yes, they are. Investment capital is leaving fossil fuels in general and heading straight for wind and solar.

      But then, Apple's press announcement is all politics to please their middle-class customer base, where rational thinking and reasoning don't belong. Since WWII politics has belonged to the PR & marketing industry, where emotion, indignation, and knee-jerk reaction reign supreme. Apple just want to be associated with popular ideas and movements so that they can sell more products. The way they run their own company is more of an indicator of where their values truly lie.

      --
      Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
  2. I have a question by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    Just who would be producing the equipment used to implement this "clean power plan" nationwide? I bet China, our obvious enemy today, would benefit greatly.

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:I have a question by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Aaah gotcha. They're direct competition for the US.

  3. Re:I have a question - I have my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Just who would be producing the equipment used to implement this "clean power plan" nationwide? I bet China, our obvious enemy today, would benefit greatly.

    And why is that? Maybe because we neglected green and clean energy because the fossil fuel industry has our government (pretty much the Republicans) by the balls? (Mitch McConnell [R-KY] origninated the lie about the "War on Coal" at the behest of his masters in the industry.)

    And maybe they did a great job in convincing half the electorate that green and clean is some "librul horseshit" to destroy jobs and ...socialism?

    We are backwards. Sticking to fossil fuels - an antiquated dirty backwards fuel source - will ruin this country. While the rest of the World progresses and surpasses us (like China already has in terms of energy), we will become a backwards shithole because of ignorant short sighted ideology and folks trying to preserve their outdated business - like the coal miners.

  4. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What does a music player company have to do with setting energy policy? They make terrible products. How good can their judgement be on other issues?

    And I'm not an Apple hater. I still have a PowerBook (yes, PPC based) that I love as well as a few more modern MacBooks (that run 10.13 which I don't much care for). It went to crap when they made iOS and started turning powerful UNIX workstations into media consumption devices.

    1. Re:So? by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      Think of them as a major us employer and energy consumer. They are less focused on a product in this space and more on the nature of the grid. Almost a more conservative approach than Tesla.

      They also have a corporate history in understanding the botched deregulation of the California energy market and want to be able to better manage costs.

      The only way clean energy does not make sense as a national grid objective is if the fuel is practically free, and you need significant multi-week storage capacity locally. Battery economics plus improved transmission capacity are likely to marginalized those benefits.

    2. Re:So? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think of them as a major us employer and energy consumer.

      Or not, since TFA mentions that Apple produces its own clean energy and sells the excess to the grid. Perhaps Apple is worried that they won't be able to sell their excess for quite so much as they had planned on....

      The only way clean energy does not make sense as a national grid objective is if the fuel is practically free, and you need significant multi-week storage capacity locally. Battery economics plus improved transmission capacity are likely to marginalized those benefits.

      If it makes sense, then you won't have to force people to do it, do you? Or does it only make sense when you use force?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  5. I have a question - war on geeks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Substitute geeks for coal miners and watch the argument change when their turn comes to be an "outdated business".

    1. Re:I have a question - war on geeks. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      already did that when they moved PC manufacturing out to the far east.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  6. Re: You can still suppport clean energy on your ow by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1
    [sarcasm]

    Yes because every industry does things like reduce pollution or increase safety without a mandate. Every power plant I know was actively looking to reduce pollution. Car manufacturers were fighting with each other to have the lowest emissions. I mean look at Volkswagen and how low their diesel cars emit.

    Also stop picking on poor little Apple and their lack of choices in power generation. I mean they only have billions in cash and can't possibly afford to buy any power plant they wanted. So little choice Apple has. . . [/sarcasm]

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  7. Re:You can still suppport clean energy on your own by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Apple is not affected by the CPP ...

    The Clean Power Plan (or CPP) was finalized by the Obama administration, and it takes aim at power plants

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  8. Re: Constitutionally by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Did you miss Article I or are you just a dipshit?

  9. Re: Fukin Obama by reanjr · · Score: 1

    Which can is that? Ending wars? Stopping economic collapse? Recovering the stock market? Saving the big three? Improving Middle East relations? Putting Israel on notice for engaging in apartheid?

  10. In Other News... by namgge · · Score: 1

    The EPA tell Apple why dropping Intel in favor of ARM processors will be a bad idea...

  11. There's already a hedge by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The capacity of American oil production is such now that there is essentially a natural cap of $70/barrel, which which get lower over time as oil production improves technology. Natural gas is also really cheap now compared to where it used to be and is going to stay that way for a very long time.

    Alternative energy will take over naturally is the technology there improves also... just let it do its thing.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  12. Re:EPA Programs by quantaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For every EPA program cut, EPA directors add $75,000 bonuses to their salaries.

    Reduce fraud, waste, and abuse then get some extra cash. An excellent incentive program.

    Your pithy response would be more effective if the Scott Pruit wasn't so ridiculously corrupt and wasteful.

    --
    I stole this Sig
  13. Re:You can still suppport clean energy on your own by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

    That's great, and presumably the rest of us can still choose between breathing polluted air, and not breathing polluted air, and you can still choose between the buildings and roads and other infrastructure you rely upon being destroyed by global warming related flooding, and them not being destroyed by global warming related flooding, right?

    Right?

    What do you mean no? What do you mean that man's right to swing his fist doesn't end at my nose?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  14. Re:The environment is a hoax by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

    Well, the average asian lady looks much better and more healthy than an americcan, too ...
    Jokes aside, america became partly great because of the 'brain drain' they put on the rest of ghe world. That is changing rapidly. The 'hot spots' on the planet are all in Asia ... USA is only cool if you speak english and are scared to learn an asian language.

    --
    Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  15. Scott Pruit: American hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Pruitt is one of the only members of the Trump cabinet who isn't a complete shill. He's shredding eco-fascism in record time. Hooray for Pruitt!

    1. Re:Scott Pruit: American hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Pruitt is one of the only members of the Trump cabinet who isn't a complete shill.

      He's fucking owned by the Koch brothers - how the hell is he not a shill?

  16. "It is ... the smart thing to do." by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    That kills any chance of it getting implemented under the current regime. They don't believe in "smart".

  17. Re:idio by mark_reh · · Score: 1

    How many rubles you get paid to troll anonymously? How can I get some money for that? Hook me up, bro!

  18. Re: This couldn't possibly hurt more. by shilly · · Score: 1

    What was the logic behind your square brackets?

  19. No, we need to go as fast as we can. by bussdriver · · Score: 2

    We shouldn't always wait for a disaster to react to. We should be wise and make moves in advance of "market conditions" to form. The invisible hand of the market is NOT god and it's not wise either; it's mostly reactionary and short sighted.

    Alternatives needed to get jump started and they did... but they need to grow faster than they have and most importantly, they need to be large enough to bribe government officials on a competitive scale with the fossil fuel industry. THEN we can seriously talk about sitting back and letting the chaos unfold hopefully in the right direction.

    Old energy is still heavily subsidized and far too influential. It is not a fair competition.

    --
    Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
    1. Re:No, we need to go as fast as we can. by archer,+the · · Score: 1

      Parent needs to be modded up, badly.

  20. Google "Swing States" by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    We Have a winner takes all political system instead of a parliament. This is by design, it makes it easy for the ruling class to maintain an illusion of democracy while having a practical oligarchy.

    Anyway, we have what's called an "Electoral College" where if you get a majority of the votes in a state you win the entire state. Most states can be counted on to vote for a certain party's candidate. For example, California always votes for the Democrat. Arizona always votes for the Republican. Etc, etc.

    There are a handful of "Swing" states that decide who gets the presidency. Ohio is one of them. Winning Ohio was instrumental in Trump winning the presidency. Trump spent a lot of time appealing to a handful of coal miners there (and in a few other states like Virginia) which pushed him over the edge. It was also great "optics" (e.g. it made him look good) for the other swing states; who have similar problems with job losses.

    tl;dr: America has an incredibly fucked up political system.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  21. And if he wasn't lowering water quality standards by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    don't forget that. I'm genuinely scared after what happened (and is still happening) in Flint, MI. The fact the America shrugged it's shoulders when it happened is even more terrifying. I've started filtering my water, and I'm hoping I'm just being paranoid. Here's hoping the Dems win in 2018 and kick Trump out in 2020. Screw partisanship, if your party can't even be bothered to give me clean water you can go to hell.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  22. There's lots of solar manufacturing in the States by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    and to Trump's credit he's put some tariffs on some of the cheap panels China was dumping here (to be fair those tariffs were proposed during the Obama admin).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  23. Re:Dull's compettive edge in clean energy economy by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 1

    Anyone who tells you that cutting "carbon emissions by about 30 percent" will "protect consumer's pocketbooks" is flat out lying to you.

    And in fact, the Obama White House page those words link to in the summary doesn't even contain the work pocketbook, so even the citation itself is something of a lie.

    --
    The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
  24. Why do they need to grow faster? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Alternatives needed to get jump started and they did.

    Why? We gained five years advancement, max. I am actually pretty dubious about that since most of the tax credits went to back companies that were basically money laundering operations for politically connected people. The only real gain was because Musk, not really a politically connected person, managed to game the tax laws to actually divert some of the flow of government funs to himself instead of the intended targets. Why do you think they were allowed to expire...

    but they need to grow faster than they have

    Why? The natural growth far outpaces all existing desires for reductions in carbon emissions. Solar power makes way too much sense - you don't have to rely on some mystical "hand of the market", just common sense that says it will eventually take over...

    Same for cars. The things people most want about cars, power (really torque) electric cars are monsters at. The natural reduction of carbon emissions from cars is inevitable, without any artificial speeding (your own form of mystical "hand" that will cure all ills).

    Old energy is still heavily subsidized

    So what? That means nothing over 20 years, All the oil companies see this coming which is why they are heavily divested in alternative energy study. Why can't see see what they so clearly can?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  26. Re:And if he wasn't lowering water quality standar by Ferretman · · Score: 1

    Um...you DO know that Flint happened under OBAMA'S watch and his EPA chief...right?

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  27. Re: Obama is a warmongering imperial fascist by reanjr · · Score: 1

    I don't believe I mentioned peace. But detente is a good first step towards that, too.