EPA’s Clean Power Plan Rule Prioritizes Net-Zero Over Grid Reliability

By Gabriella Hoffman Christian Palich

Coal and natural gas plants provide 60% of the U.S.’ affordable, reliable, and baseload power. In a time of increased electricity demand, America needs to double down on harnessing these sources—not abandon them.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s recently finalized Clean Power Plan 2.0 (CPP) rule, however, takes the country in the wrong direction. Under this regulation, one that is arguably illegal, existing coal and new natural gas power plants will be mandated to install emissions control technologies that aren’t yet commercially viable. Plants that don’t comply risk permanent closure. This unrealistic mandate is advanced under the guise of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 90% by 2032.

The Biden administration should nix this rule altogether given its many drawbacks to the American economy, all of which come with no environmental gain and are based on dubious authority. If it doesn’t reverse course, a forthcoming Congressional resolution of disapproval and newly-filed lawsuits could stop overreach here.

The EPA’s limited authority over-regulating greenhouse gas emissions was affirmed in the landmark June 2022 West Virginia vs. EPA decision. That case challenged the original Obama-era Clean Power Plan, and the Supreme Court ruled the EPA lacked the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. No change has been made to grant the EPA more authority over greenhouse gasses.

Moreover, the Clean Air Act says the EPA must craft achievable emission limitations standards that have been “adequately demonstrated.” Yet, the Carbon Capture technology that would be relied upon under this rule has never been “adequately demonstrated” on the scale that EPA is attempting to require.

The EPA rule would lead to grid instability because operators will be forced to adopt intermittent, unreliable, and costly sources like wind and solar. According to the Department of Energy, wind is only reliable 33.5% of the year while solar is dependable for just 24.9% of the time. Wind energy generation decreased for the first time last year. The federal government reports wind generation hit maturity with slower recorded wind speeds, despite adding 6.2 gigawatts of new wind capacity. Solar energy also had a bad 2023 with over 100 companies going bankrupt and expensive electricity rates. Many planned solar plants, including those receiving Inflation Reduction Act subsidies, are predicted to be canceled this year due to price collapse and waning demand.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) warned in its December 2023 Long-Term Assessment report that rigid policies like CPP 2.0 “have the potential to influence generators” to close down their plants. The risk of massive electric reliability issues across the country is by no means a political talking point. In 2023, FERC Commissioner Danly stated in a hearing to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that “there is a looming reliability crisis in our electricity markets.” In that same hearing, Commissioner Christie said “The United States is heading for a very catastrophic situation in terms of reliability.” These are the experts sounding the alarm that we need more grid capacity from baseload sources, not intermittent ones, or we could face not just loss of commerce but a loss of human life.

CPP 2.0 promises to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2032 by mandating coal and natural gas plants install carbon capture and storage (CCS) or face closure. But the EPA is downplaying the nascent technology’s shortcomings.

CCS, as it stands, is expensive and will diminish coal and natural gas plant efficiency by at least 14%. Moreover, natural gas and coal plants retrofitted with first-generation carbon capture technology reportedly can expect a 50% and 70 to 80% increase in electricity costs, respectively.

In the U.S., we already have highly effective emissions technology that enables coal plants to run in an incredibly environmental way. For example, just look at how states that rely heavily on coal have almost none of the air quality issues of China or India. That’s because of our emissions control technologies.

Let’s call this rule out for what it really is: It’s a vehicle to punish coal country which has left the president’s party in droves over the last 20 years, in favor of radical environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) donors who are a major constituency of this administration.

The finalized Clean Power Plan 2.0 rule is a bad deal for American energy producers and consumers. Congress should immediately pull the plug on this rule.

Gabriella Hoffman is director of Independent Women’s Forum’s Center for Energy and Conservation (iwf.org/CEC) and host of the District of Conservation podcast.

Christian Palich is Vice President of Government & External Affairs at Eagle Forge Services Company, one of the nation’s largest coal producers and a board advisory member for IWF’s Center for Energy and Conservation.

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

5 14 votes
Article Rating
20 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
May 22, 2024 6:16 pm

The Democrats have had contempt for the Supreme Court since at least the Cherokee case under Andrew Jackson.

Edward Katz
May 22, 2024 6:18 pm

If the EPA is seriously advocating a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2032, it’s demonstrating how loose its grip on reality really is. And if it honestly believes citizens will tolerate intermittent and unreliable energy sources at any time of the year, not just during extremes of heat and cold, it needs to replace its entire administration with people who are aware of where the country’s real energy priorities lie, not just those of the eco-dreamers.

0perator
May 22, 2024 6:44 pm

So they’re disbanding NERC?

Beta Blocker
Reply to  0perator
May 23, 2024 7:53 am

They aren’t disbanding NERC; rather, they are emasculating it.

Bryan A
May 22, 2024 6:51 pm

Net Zero equates to…
Net Zero Grid Stability
Net Zero Grid Reliability
Net Zero Grid Availability
Net Zero Dollar$ to $pend on anything other than trying to make the Net Zero Pipe Dream functional

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Bryan A
May 22, 2024 7:28 pm

Not to mention, no meat, no dairy, no gasoline, no gas, and no sense.

Bryan A
Reply to  Jim Masterson
May 22, 2024 7:40 pm

Too much
Non Dairy
Non Meat
Non Sense

Rick C
Reply to  Bryan A
May 23, 2024 9:56 am

After going through a 36 hour power failure in the last couple days and knowing that the green energy freight train is still rumbling down the tracks toward further destruction of grid reliability, I’ve made the decision to invest in a gas powered back-up system. No water, refrigeration, internet, A/C, lights etc. for 2 days is bad, but what’s going to happen when a major storm takes out chunks of both wind and solar farms? Clearing debris and restringing downed lines is relatively quick. How long does it take to replace a bunch of wind turbines or a thousand acres of solar panels?

May 22, 2024 7:29 pm

Where is the EPA headquarters located? Washington DC isn’t it !

That should be the first area to suffer blackouts and loss of electricity supply.

May 22, 2024 7:33 pm

wind is only reliable 33.5% of the year while solar is dependable for just 24.9% of the time” That is wrong. Neither wind nor solar are reliable or dependable, in they can’t meet dispatch on a two hour ahead schedule. The numbers given in the percentages are their load factor, that is their average output, divided by their maximum rated output.

Iain Reid
Reply to  Chris Morris
May 22, 2024 11:17 pm

Chris,

that is only one of the negatives of wind and solar, they have a few technical negatives as well and no positives. Not least they lack the ability to do a grid black start which is a likely scenario in the near future.

Reply to  Iain Reid
May 23, 2024 11:43 am

Iain I am well aware of the problems with the unreliables. Planning Engineer and I have a number of articles addressing the technical issues over on Climate etc, many of which were reprinted here on WUWT.
The black start ability isn’t significant. As long as you have the right emergency generator at a hydro and control from there, you can restore, but it is a long and fraught process. You can also theoretically do it from a battery bank with grid forming invertors, but that hasn’t had a large-scale real- life test yet.

Reply to  Chris Morris
May 23, 2024 7:21 am

Batteries to the rescue . . . lots, and lots, and lots of batteries. And even more batteries to replace those that fail and catch fire.

Streetcred
May 22, 2024 9:06 pm

There’s only one way to resolve this, the coal and gas generators need to notify the EPA of intent to shut down the plant as they cannot comply. They can cite contract frustration and terminate any supply agreements. Only the cold hard truth will shock people into reality.

Bryan A
Reply to  Streetcred
May 23, 2024 4:46 am

comment image
Master-Blaster

Beta Blocker
Reply to  Streetcred
May 23, 2024 8:05 am

There’s only one way to resolve this, the coal and gas generators need to notify the EPA of intent to shut down the plant as they cannot comply. They can cite contract frustration and terminate any supply agreements. Only the cold hard truth will shock people into reality.

The power utilities exist to make a profit, not necessarily to serve their customers. Many of the power utilities are playing a game with Net Zero in order to increase the value of their asset base in ways which will increase their regulated profits.

Does it serve their interests to inform a Public Utility Commission that they will be closing a coal-fired or a gas-fired power plant if doing so too early in the game threatens the money they could be making by pushing wind and solar until the very last possible moment before it all crashes down?

William Ponton
May 23, 2024 2:44 am

“Wind energy generation decreased for the first time last year. The federal government reports wind generation hit maturity with slower recorded wind speeds, despite adding 6.2 gigawatts of new wind capacity”.  One should be cautious in assuming that the decrease in wind energy generation was solely due to a decrease in wind speeds. I suspect that the real culprit is the inability of the grid to utilize it, With renewables, there is an inherent mismatch between supply and demand that can not be easily dismissed. Closer inspection of wind power curtailment might reveal that wind energy generation will progress at a diminishing rate rather than a linear one with increases in wind power capacity. I discuss at length my understanding of the mismatch in my report, The Cost of Increasing UK Wind Power Capacity: A Reality Check.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/mbryjai1llf7ggbiydp1h/The-Cost-of-Increasing-UK-Wind-Power-Capacity-A-Reality-Check-rev-31.pdf?rlkey=ia4q9a2tg5i3pj4nj1p9z75mq&dl=0

Reply to  William Ponton
May 23, 2024 7:26 am

From the news over the last several months, all that is needed is a 3-10 MW wind turbine design that is able to operate at wind velocities up to 300 mph . . . US energy problem solved!

(no “/sarc” necessary, I think)

May 23, 2024 7:17 am

My understanding is that having no power at all does meet the definition of being “net-zero”.

/sarc

bo
May 23, 2024 7:28 pm

Between CPP 2.0 and Sierra Club lawfare, Talen wants to shut down 2 GW of coal power in Maryland next year. PJM (the ISO) is trying to push it off until 2028. The replacement power was supposed to be 2 GW (nameplate, so really 700 MW) of offshore wind from Ørsted and US Wind projects available in 2028. Ørsted has already pulled out, and US WInd was counting on the big Halide turbines that GE announced they weren’t going to make.

Maybe D.C. will get those blackouts bnice mentions.

Verified by MonsterInsights