海角大神

During a cold spell on Christmas Eve, Ohio鈥檚 Buckeye Power Inc. came very close to rolling blackouts that would have left its 1 million mostly rural and lower-income customers without heat.听

Now, as听the air conditioning season heats up, CEO Patrick O鈥橪oughlin recently told Congress he is facing another hurdle: a rule proposed in May听by the Environmental Protection Agency that would require plants like his to cut carbon emissions substantially by the 2030s.听

His company has already spent more than $1 billion over the past two decades to comply with previous environmental regulations and to implement 鈥渟tate of the art鈥� emission reductions technology. But this rule, he听testified听June 6, involves听unrealistic timelines for implementing听technology听not yet proven听at commercial scale,听and would听force听Buckeye听to shut down its coal plants with 鈥渘early no hope鈥� of replacing that power by the EPA deadlines.

鈥淚t鈥檚 going to force the retirements of several units like ours that right now provide the backbone of a reliable electric system,鈥� said Mr. O鈥橪oughlin. His company also听generates electricity from natural gas, hydropower, biogas, and solar, but 80% comes from coal, he said.听

The debate over how to move America 鈥� and the world 鈥撎齮oward cleaner energy without leaving customers in the dark has become increasingly urgent in recent years. Now it鈥檚 coming to a head over this proposed rule.

If implemented, this EPA regulation would for the first time set legally enforceable deadlines for carbon emission reductions in the electricity sector, which is the No. 2 source of emissions in the United States.听Advocates say the rule is crucial to America meeting its emissions reduction targets under the Paris Agreement, and that it is based on technologies that are cost-effective and have been 鈥渁dequately demonstrated.鈥澨�

鈥淲e simply can鈥檛 meet our climate goals without substantial reductions from this sector,鈥� says Andres Restrepo, senior attorney with the Sierra Club鈥檚 Environmental Law Program. Noting that a significant transition toward more green energy has been occurring over the past five to 10 years, he adds, 鈥淭his rule will help speed that along.鈥�

Indeed, most proposed听new听projects are zero-emissions. But there鈥檚 a backlog in getting them approved听and online 鈥� and their solar and wind power is intermittent rather than continuous like coal and gas. To be sure, fossil fuels also have reliability issues; recent emergencies like the听2021 Texas winter storm听outages, which left 210 dead and more than 4.5 million without power, were due in part to natural gas fuel supply issues.听Still, industry stakeholders and their GOP allies say that an overly hasty green transition could strain a grid already beset by rising demand, extreme weather events, and coal plants retiring faster than renewables can reliably provide a similar amount of electricity.

The comment period for this EPA rule, which ends Aug. 8,听has therefore become an outlet for a broad range of concerns about听electricity affordability and grid reliability.听As for the rule specifically, critics say the EPA鈥檚 modeling has overestimated the potential for emissions reduction and based its requirements on technology whose commercial viability has yet to be proven in the power sector.

鈥淭here are fundamental questions about how economically feasible this technology could be at scale,鈥� says Devin Hartman, director of听energy and environmental policy at the R Street Institute,听a think tank.

How much difference would the rule make?

Scientists have estimated that in order to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels 鈥� the target of the Paris Agreement, an international treaty on climate change that the U.S. rejoined under the Biden administration 鈥� the world will need to cut greenhouse gas emissions by听43%听compared with 2019 levels by the end of the decade.听Many climate scientists believe the world will miss that target.听

The EPA has regulated greenhouse gases in cars as well as oil and gas production, but has yet to do so in the electric power sector. The Obama administration had tried to cut emissions in the sector with its 2015 Clean Power Plan, which was later withdrawn by the Trump administration. Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a key principle of the plan in West Virginia v. EPA.

Still, the sector has substantially decreased its emissions over the past decade, down听to 1980听levels.听Under this new rule, the EPA projects听annual reductions of 0.6% to 5.7% compared with current levels during the period 2028-2042, with a cumulative reduction of 617 million metric tons.听

To achieve that, the EPA is using its authority under the Clean Air Act to听propose听new limits on how much carbon can be emitted by existing and new coal- and gas-fired power plants.听It would apply a听sliding scale of percentages and timelines depending on the type, age, and output of plants. To meet the targets, most would have to utilize carbon capture and storage technology or begin co-firing with cleaner fuels.

Carbon capture and storage has become more affordable, due to $12 billion worth of incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act passed by Congress last year. And the technology has been used in other types of plants, including oil refineries, cement plants, and ethanol plants. Carbon capture has been used to cut carbon emissions by as much as 90% in a number of small-scale projects,听and was first deployed at scale in the U.S. on听a coal-fired power plant in 2017. That plant, Petra Nova in Texas, has since been听idled. The听EPA says that a Canadian coal-fired power plant, Boundary Dam, also demonstrates the scalability of such technology, which the plant is using on one of its units with demonstrated capture rates of 90%.听

In an email to the Monitor, EPA said the agency 鈥渕ay determine a control to be 鈥榓dequately demonstrated鈥� even if it is new and not yet in widespread commercial use鈥� 鈥撎齭omething it did with sulfur regulation in the 1970s. The agency said it can also 鈥渞easonably project鈥� how quickly technologies will improve, and set timelines accordingly.

After the comment period closes, the EPA will finalize the rule, incorporating feedback as it sees fit. Once implemented,听it will likely be challenged in court. But the EPA has sought to base the rule on solid legal footing by only regulating emissions, rather than by directly requiring certain types or proportions of electricity generation.

鈥淭his is its latest try at trying to stay within the mercurial boundaries of the Supreme Court,鈥� says John Larsen, who leads U.S. energy system and climate policy research at the Rhodium Group, an independent research provider.

The broader issue: a stressed grid

The new rule comes against a backdrop of increasing concern about grid reliability as coal plants retire, extreme weather events stress the system, and overall demand rises,听due in part to a move toward electric vehicles and new power-intensive sectors like cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence.

鈥淚 would probably put [the rule] in the top three of challenges to grid reliability,鈥� says John Chiles of GDS Associates in Marietta, Georgia, a consulting and engineering firm. Mr. Chiles is an expert听on transmission services who has worked in different aspects of the industry for decades.

While even some supporters say听there are significant operational challenges in听implementing the rule, which could affect reliability if not managed well,听some say it鈥檚 not as difficult as the industry is making it out to be. The rule will not affect the plants used at听crunch times 鈥� so-called peaker plants. In addition, if a plant announces it plans to retire and a grid operator determines that will undermine reliability, the operator can require the plant to stay online for a time 鈥� preventing a sudden drop-off in electricity supply.

Some of the key challenges with reliability are unrelated to this rule, including the backlog of new green energy projects trying to win the various approvals needed to get up and running. The patchwork of federal regulations, state policies, and NIMBYism can draw out the process for years.听听

Part of the challenge is that no one government agency was designed to manage a major energy transition like this, leaving jurisdictional gaps and overlaps that Congress has not tried to clarify since a听failed clean energy bill听in 2009.听

The responsibility and requirements for pollution, grid operations, reliability rules, and incentives for clean energy technologies are听spread across federal and state听agencies.听

鈥淭here鈥檚 no central coordination,鈥� says the Rhodium Group鈥檚 Mr. Larsen, who formerly worked for the Department of Energy.听听

Jay Duffy, litigation director for the advocacy group Clean Air Task Force, calls for a 鈥渨hole of government鈥� approach that draws on the expertise of the various agencies to achieve the clean energy transition.听

But industry also needs a nudge, he testified on June 6.

鈥淗istory shows that pollution control options can be developed, available, and cost-reasonable, yet sit on the shelves gathering dust until some regulation or incentive pushes or pulls an industry to reduce their pollution.鈥�

Editor鈥檚 note: A paragraph in this article has been updated to reflect additional information, provided by the EPA after publication, on current deployment of carbon capture technology.