New EPA Rules Could Dangerously Close Baseload Power Plants

By Bernard L. Weinstein

Recent extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Beryl that left more than two million Texas households and business without electricity for days and then went on to flood parts of the Midwest and New England, has drawn renewed attention to the vulnerabilities of America’s power grids. As climate models predict even more severe weather in the future, utilities across the nation are taking measures to “harden the grid” such as replacing wooden poles with steel or concrete, putting more transmission and distribution lines underground, and installing transformer circuit breakers that can work underwater.

But the recent focus on improving grid resiliency may be masking a more serious energy issue—namely, a projected deficit in baseload power generation relative to the expected growth in electricity demand over the next several decades. The U.S. Energy Information Administration sees electricity consumption reaching record highs in 2024 and 2025 and is also projecting that demand will jump from its current level of about 4,100 terawatt hours today to more than 5,200 terawatt hours by 2050, a 27% increase.

This rapid growth in demand will be driven by a number of factors. First is the expansion of power-hungry server farms that are expected to consume more than one-third of new capacity in the years ahead as the incorporation of artificial intelligence requires even more power than traditional data centers. Hydrogen production, which uses huge amounts of electricity, is another factor pushing up power demand as is the overall electrification of the U.S. economy.

The huge growth of investment in renewables in recent years, especially wind and solar, has created the perception that plenty of generation will be available to meet future demand. Over the past decade, installed wind generation capacity has jumped from 60 gigawatts to more than 150 gigawatts while solar farms now produce 150,000 gigawatt hours of electricity per year compared with a mere 10,000 ten years ago. But data centers, crypto-miners, and other critical information technology infrastructure need reliable, 24/7 power sources.  They can’t rely solely on renewables because of their intermittency. For example, in 2023 wind generation in the U.S. actually declined by 9 terawatt hours despite the addition of hundreds of wind turbines to the grid.

Meanwhile, investment in baseload natural gas, nuclear, and coal plants has languished. According to the Energy Information Administration, additions to natural gas capacity are at a 25-year low of 2.5 gigawatts this year, or just 4 percent of total planned capacity. This is down from 21% of planned capacity as recently as 2020. At the same time, according to the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the power grid has lost more than 50 gigawatts of natural gas, coal, nuclear, and hydro power over the past decade while more than 1,000 coal plants have been shuttered. In response, a growing coalition of industry leaders, regulators and independent experts is warning that with power demand booming while coal and nuclear plants are going offline, the nation’s grids are more susceptible to electricity shortages than at any time in the past 50 years.

Making matters worse, new “carbon capture” rules from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may not only retard new investment in natural gas plants but may actually hasten both gas and coal-fired power plant closures. Under the rules, new gas plants that will operate after 2039 must install carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies, run them at 90% efficiency, and store the captured CO2 underground. The EPA’s rules also apply to existing coal plants which are required to reduce their carbon emissions by 90% by 2032 if they plan to operate past 2039. Not only will complying with these rules prove expensive, the new CCS standards may not even be technically achievable.

Reducing or eliminating policies that cause market distortions, such as the huge subsidies for wind, solar and batteries, would be one option for sustaining baseload power generation. But these incentives remain popular and were actually extended by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Instead, the next administration in Washington should move to rescind the new EPA CCS rules in order to maintain a level playing field for all forms of electricity generation and to encourage more investment in baseload power plants.

In reality, baseload, dispatchable power—namely coal, nuclear and large gas-fired plants—will remain the backbone of America’s energy supply for the foreseeable future. Despite the continued expansion of renewables, there is no other way to maintain the reliability of the power grid while meeting the growing electricity needs of American industry.

Bernard L. Weinstein is retired associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, a professor emeritus of applied economics at the University of North Texas, and a fellow of Goodenough College, London.    

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

4.8 20 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

25 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
strativarius
August 7, 2024 12:47 am

 As climate models predict even more…


As they’re programmed to

observa
August 7, 2024 1:19 am

As climate models predict even more severe weather in the future, utilities across the nation are taking measures to “harden the grid”

Well I don’t think AI can help with that from the demand side of things-
Aussie firms urged to deploy AI but limit its emissions (msn.com)
It’s a real glutton and lacks green intelligence apparently

Editor
Reply to  observa
August 7, 2024 1:40 am

AI and other computer-driven energy hogs will be given their own fuel-based power stations, while humans try to survive with frequent blackouts. Welcome to the new feudalism.

strativarius
Reply to  Mike Jonas
August 7, 2024 2:02 am

Each according to their station – and need.

LT3
August 7, 2024 3:26 am

There is one big if here, will the subscription model for an AI doing woke work generate enough revenue to pay for the electricity. Point in fact, Twitter was charging 50,000 dollars annually for their Twitter feeds to various organizations mining Twitter sentiment, after exhaustive work, the general conclusion is that people bitch and complain a lot and using that to predict stock prices, political sentiment and various economic metrics consistently was not possible. The truth is generally required for something to be useful.

August 7, 2024 4:04 am

“Over the past decade, installed wind generation capacity has jumped from 60 gigawatts to more than 150 gigawatts while solar farms now produce 150,000 gigawatt hours of electricity per year compared with a mere 10,000 ten years ago.”

What’s with the reference to 10,000 years ago? I don’t get it.

oeman50
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 7, 2024 4:34 am

I think we are intended to infer the 10,000 is gigawatt hours, not years.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 7, 2024 7:05 am

Read the passage again. The 10,000 is a reference to GWH and your rephrasing to eliminate “ten” from the sentence is the source of your confusion.

Funny how the wind is in installed capacity in GW but the solar is in produce GWH per year, isn’t it?

oeman50
August 7, 2024 4:44 am

The new EPA rules are an exercise in magical thinking. Just because you can dream it, doesn’t make the technology possible or affordable. CCS attached to a natural gas fired turbine has not been demonstrated at scale anywhere in the world! And even if the CO2 can be captured, where do you put it? There are many places that do not have sequesterable geologies. So try to build a CO2 pipeline anywhere on the East Coast to send it somewhere suitable. The enviros will be out in full-throated fury fighting against it.

traxiii
Reply to  oeman50
August 7, 2024 9:22 am

I would think they can be challenged and removed with the striking down of Chevron Deference.

Reply to  oeman50
August 7, 2024 9:47 am

If there is not enough CO2 in the air, come the next glacial period, when the oceans cool and more CO2 can dissolve in them and it gets sucked from the air we will all perish.

Photosynthesis stops in most land plants when to CO2 level drops below 150 ppm and they die and the land animals die with them.

In the last glacial period the CO2 level dropped to 180 ppm only 30 ppm above the extinction point.

They had better be vary careful. The interglacial periods usually last about 10,000 years and this one has lasted around 12,000 years so a new glacial period may start anytime.
https://pioga.org/just-the-facts-more-co2-is-good-less-is-bad

Reply to  oeman50
August 7, 2024 12:07 pm

Good – the enviros opposition should stall the projects until we all come to our senses and realize that there is no climate emergency.

August 7, 2024 4:58 am

I stopped reading at “Recent extreme weather events, such as Hurricane Beryl”

there was nothing extreme about Beryl. It was just a plain ordinary, hurricane, category one. The massive power outage and long lag before restoration was mostly to do with poor utility management.

SwedeTex
August 7, 2024 4:58 am

Yesterday at 16:39 hrs, Texas wind was producing 1,680 MW of electricity. That is out of 39,600 of installed capacity. Or about 4.3% if its installed capacity. Fortunately, we still have enough reliable sources on our grid for now. Oh, and the Texas Energy Fund designed to help add reliable sources received over $29B in loan and grant applications. Texas legislature funded $5B out of tax revenues. That is about $167 in tax revenue for every Texan on top of their current electric bill. That is a reliability premium needed because of unreliable wind and solar. There is talk of doubling that $5B to $10B next session. When calculating the cost of wind and solar, those costs need to be assigned to those sources.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  SwedeTex
August 7, 2024 7:07 am

But, but, but taxes are not electric bills.

Oh. Wait. Paid out of the same bank account, aka cost of living.

DonK31
Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
August 7, 2024 7:24 am

Money taken from the right pocket is different from the same amount of money taken from the left pocket.

Reply to  SwedeTex
August 7, 2024 1:55 pm

Look at Annual Report for any Electric Utility that is required to provide one. Cost of fuel, (Wind, Solar, Coal, NG, Oil. Hydro, etc.) is near the bottom of the expenditures. Near 50 percent of your monthly payment for electricity consists of the Taxes the utility pays to Federal, State, Municipal Taxes for property and income. Worse, some states make you pay state sales taxes on your electricity purchase. Just below that is Employee costs (Insurance, Healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Training, Mandates inspections, most of which is regulatory mandated, and reimbursement of employees college expenses. Below that is maintenance required on transmission lines, property and equipment. That is followed by Federally mandated “Improvements” and changes in equipment procedures.

Federal regulations on electric power generation are Legion.

Sparta Nova 4
August 7, 2024 7:01 am

It will be a good time for all trying to recharge the EVs when the grid is in blackout.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
August 7, 2024 7:53 am

Energy planning is being replaced by wishful thinking.

Giving_Cat
August 7, 2024 10:01 am

How many of the emergency response vehicles deployed to repair the “recent extreme weather events, Hurricane Beryl” were EVs?

August 7, 2024 10:41 am

This is the West’s biggest mistake, a mistake that the East has not made, is not making and will not make, and that the United States, so far and only to a certain extent, has been exempt. This is the asymmetric renewable expansion by decommissioning fossil fuel-based capacity without proportionally Increasing gas-fired generation capacity. Why? Because, if renewables are required to save the planet from a non-problem and, at the same time, grid stability and electricity are demanded (not affordability, which is already in the past), there must be available at all times a little thing called thermal backup generation without which those green marvels cannot produce sometimes electricity, and the consequent rule of thumb requiring that, for every MW of renewable generation capacity, there must be at least 1MW of thermal capacity for backup.

 

The US now wants to join the disastrous European non-fossil-net-zero renewable club.

 

Dark clouds on the horizon or, rather, massive Texas-like blackouts on the horizon.

August 7, 2024 12:30 pm

As climate models predict even more severe weather in the future

Climate models do not and cannot predict severe weather. Climate is defined as 30 years of weather in a given area. Therefore, it is not logical to say that weather can predict the weather, which this statement actually does.

Reply to  doonman
August 7, 2024 1:03 pm

I recall this axiom of meteorology: What happened in the past will most likely happen in the future.

Bob
August 7, 2024 1:19 pm

We do not have a climate problem, we have a government problem and a big one. First thing to do is rescind all rule making power from the EPA as well as all enforcement power. It would be better to dismantle the EPA and start over. They are the problem.

Ex-KaliforniaKook
Reply to  Bob
August 7, 2024 4:28 pm

You hit the nail on the head. The bureaucratic branch of the US government far outweighs the other three branches of government. They used to be an element of the Executive Branch but have taken on a life of their own. They are unelected, with little to no oversight. They make laws (called rules and regulations) and are judge and jury with respect to them. The current SCOTUS is trying to bring them under control, but the Democrat Party supports them without limitation.

They are not just a threat to democracy – they are THE threat to democracy.