Can the E.P.A. Reduce CO2 Emissions at Power Plants? The Case for a Clean Future for the United States
An estimated 280 million tons of planet-warming carbon dioxide would be released if oil were burned at the Willow site, according to the White House. The new rules on power plants would lower emissions by 617 million tons between 2028 and 2042, according to the E.P.A. Adding the other proposed E.P.A. regulations would bring the total amount of eliminated emissions to 15 billion tons by 2055 — roughly the amount of pollution generated by the entire United States economy over three years. The Inflation Reduction Act could cut emissions by at least one billion tons by the year 2030.
That could help the United States meet Mr. Biden’s pledge that it would cut its greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030 and stop adding Carbon dioxide to the atmosphere altogether by the year 2050.
That is the action required of all major industrialized countries, scientists say, to keep average global temperatures from increasing by 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit), compared with preindustrial levels. Beyond that point, the effects of catastrophic heat waves, flooding, drought, crop failure and species extinction would become significantly harder for humanity to handle. The planet has already warmed by an average of 1.1 degrees Celsius.
Several regulations from the E.P.A. are contributing to the whole picture that is necessary to steer this ocean liner away from the worst climate disaster, according to Dallas Burtraw, an economist with Resources for the Future.
The proposed rules set emission limits for power plants and then allow them to decide how they’ll meet the requirements, which could include shutting down their facility. The EPA concludes technologies, such as carbon capture and storage, that have been too expensive in the past are now more affordable, especially with tax credits available under the climate-focused Inflation Reduction Act that was passed last year.
For more than a century, the owners of those plants have been allowed to release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. If these proposed regulations are finalized, they would come close to putting a stop to that practice.
The fossil fuel industry and its allies are likely to challenge the rules in a court of law.
“EPA’s proposal relies on proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
The regulation would bring health benefits because of the reduction of pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The EPA projects that in 2030, the proposed rules would prevent 1,300 premature deaths, more than 800 hospital and emergency room visits and more than 300,000 cases of asthma attacks. While the rules could increase electricity prices a “negligible” amount, the agency values the net climate and health benefits would be up to $85 billion.
The new EPA rules were shaped by legal battles. The Supreme Court limited the agency’s options in regards to regulating power plant emissions. Justices said that without a specific law, the agency cannot force the entire power generation industry to move away from fossil fuels toward less-polluting energy sources.
David Doniger of the Natural Resources Defense Council says the path that’s open under the law was told to the EPA by it.
Still, the coal industry may have the most to lose under this proposal. The Sierra Club has found 158 active coal power plants. Despite the EPA’s analysis, the National Mining Association says carbon capture technology is not yet “technically and fully economically demonstrated.” The organization called for a “carbon capture moonshot.”
Criticism from the coal industry and its allies came even before the proposed rules were announced, some of it from within President Biden’s own party.
“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hell-bent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence,” said Sen. Joe Manchin, D-WV, in a statement released by his office. Manchin’s family is involved in the coal business and also owns a coal company. Manchin said he would oppose the EPA nominees unless the White House halted their overreach.
Coal remains a major industry in West Virginia and preserving coal-fired electricity is a priority for many people there. The surcharge was put in place to keep a coal plant open at the end of May. Customers will pay the subsidy even if the plant doesn’t generate electricity, though it will keep the facility’s 146 employees on the payroll.
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, who’s also running for governor, led a legal challenge by states opposed to the 2015 Clean Power Plan. He’s expected to lead a similar legal challenge to these rules, once they are finalized next year.
The regulations also could face opposition from the natural gas industry, which has sought to preserve its role in electricity generation. The American Petroleum Institute, in comments submitted before the rule was released, urged “EPA to consider the essential role gas-fired generators will continue to play in complementing renewables,” and asked for “significant compliance flexibility.”
Even though the regulation will survive the court challenge, a future administration could change it. The Clean Power Plan was replaced with the weakerAffordable Clean Energy rule by the former President. The rules are likely to be a topic in the next presidential election.