Posted on 08/03/2015 5:28:03 AM PDT by thackney
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) final Clean Power Plan will seek to tamp down the nation’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the power sector by 32% from 2005 levels by 2030—about 9% more ambitious than its original proposal.
The first-ever final national standards to limit CO2 from power plants, to be released today—”the biggest, most important step we’ve taken to address climate change,” said President Obama—give states more time develop and tailored plans.
State plans are now due in September 2016, but states that need more time can make an initial submission and request extensions of up to two years for final plan submission. The compliance averaging period in the final rule begins in 2022 instead of 2020, and emission reductions are phased in on a gradual ‘glide path’ to 2030.
As with the proposed rule, the EPA established interim and final statewide goals, but it expands them to three forms: A rate-based state goal measured in pounds per megawatt-hour (lb/MWh); a mass-based state goal measured in total short tons of CO2; and a mass-based state goal with a new source complement measured in total short tons of CO2.
Significantly, it requires states to address grid reliability in their state plans. The final rule also provides a “reliability safety valve” to address any reliability challenges that arise on a case-by-case basis. “These measures are built on a framework that is inherently flexible in that it does not impose plant-specific requirements and provides states flexibility to smooth out their emission reductions over the period of the plan and across sources,” the agency said.
Flexibility Strategies
Compared to the proposed rule, the final rule also provides more flexibility in how state plans can be designed and implemented. For one, it allows states to include trading and demand-side energy efficiency in their plans. It also allows states to develop “trading ready” plans to participate in an “opt in” emission credit trading market with other states taking parallel approaches, without the need for interstate agreements. Generation technologies that can play a role in state plans include renewables, energy efficiency, natural gas, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage.
According to documents released today, the Clean Power Plan is paired with a so-called “Clean Energy Incentive Program,” which is designed to drive “additional early deployment of renewable energy and low-income energy efficiency.” It will see credits for power generated from renewables in 2020 and 2021 be awarded to projects that begin construction after participating states submit their final implementation plans.
The EPA also released a proposed federal implementation plan, which it said could provide a “model” states can use to design plans.
The Cost/Benefit Question
As directed by President Obama’s Climate Action Plan, the EPA on June 2, 2014, proposed its “Clean Power Plan” emissions guidelines for existing power plants under the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 111(d) (see this infographic for how the rule evolved).
The proposal set state-specific, rate-based goals and relies on four “building blocks” to establish the best approach for each state to slash power sector CO2 emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.
The EPA said it sifted through four million comments while drawing up the final rule. Its release has been orchestrated to build momentum toward international climate talks in Paris this December, and to help the U.S. achieve lofty climate goals to slash emissions in the range of 17% below 2005 levels by 2020—and by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels by 2025.
Among the plan’s benefits listed by the EPA are that it will create “tens of thousands of jobs while ensuring grid reliability,” and that it will drive investment to clean energy technologies, “resulting in 30% more renewable energy generation in 2030.”
What Happens Now?
The final rule has been much-anticipated by stakeholders, who are split about the rule’s possible impact.
Industry group the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), representing investor-owned utilities, said in a statement on Aug. 2, preceding the final rule’s release, that the power sector is ”already is making significant investments to transition to a cleaner generating fleet and to enhance the electric grid. This transition is exemplified by the 73 gigawatts of publicly announced coal plant retirements or retrofits scheduled to take place by 2022—enough to power 36 million households. Overall, the industry’s capital expenditures are projected to be approximately $100 billion per year through 2016, with a record-high $108.2 billion estimated for 2015.”
EEI’s primary concern remained the overall timing and stringency of near-term reduction targets. “Until we review the final guidelines in their entirety, it is difficult to assess whether they address the range of concerns we have raised over the past year. Ultimately, it is imperative that the final guidelines respect how the electric system works and provide enough time and flexibility to make the necessary changes to achieve carbon emission reductions,” said EEI President Tom Kuhn.
Environmental groups have criticized the proposed rule as too weak, while stakeholders of coal power have railed against the proposed rule’s costs. Often cited is a NERA (National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm) study that puts the total cost at $366 billion through 2031 and estimates increases in electricity prices of 12% or more.
If there’s one thing that’s agreed upon, it is that the rule will surely be challenged in court. “Petitioners are champing at the bit to challenge EPA’s anticipated rule restricting carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. But EPA has not yet issued a final rule. It has issued only a proposed rule,” wrote Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh in a June 2015 opinion for the D.C. Circuit in which the federal court rejected challenges to the Clean Power Plan filed by coal firm Murray Energy Corp. and 12 states.
One argument certain to be litigated is whether the EPA’s use of Section 111 of the Clean Air Act gives the agency the statutory and constitutional authority to adopt its plan.
That has been the subject of dozens of hearings in the U.S. Congress and in state legislatures.
CO2 is good for plants. What is going on? Pseudo science?
The EPA = Nixon’s Revenge
This country is sliding into anarchy and it will be ran Chicago style which means waivers and special privileges. Take for instance Springfield, Illinois it will get a waiver to run its coal fired power plant when the going gets tough. In 2012 during a very hot summer with high demand I drove thru Springfield and as I was driving up from the south you could see the haze from the power plant had settled down upon the city, but it won’t matter because the people who matter work in that city. Now if you are in red state Hooterville and your politicians have no pull you better get solar panels.
Not to worry, China will produce plenty of CO2 to make up for our expensive reductions. The plants will be fine.
Also, the donor class is lining up with crony companies that can “help” the utility industries cope with the new clean environment regulations. And the taxpayers will pick up the bill!
We have no representation, just heavy handed government.
We always do.
Thank you for posting these energy related threads.
I find your posts and comments some of the more informative on FR.
This will mitigate the dread rise of the sea level in Miami. Thankfully the rest of Florida is not affected.
More anti-capitalist extremism from the boy in the Rainbow Palace. Hold on to your wallets America! The rainbow thief is at it again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.