EPA acts to limit industrial carbon pollution from new power plants

Since we last weighed in on this in November, we're delighted to report that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has formally proposed a standard to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from new power plants (the source of 40 percent of the country's global warming pollution).

Since Pennsylvania is the third worst state in the country in terms of global warming pollution -- and home to some of the dirtiest power plants in the country, to boot -- we have a special responsibility to act.

As Congress, apparently cowed by the many science deniers in their ranks, flat out refuses to limit carbon pollution from power plants, federal law requires the President to invoke his executive powers to act.

Requiring any new power plants to be cleaner

In April 2012, EPA first proposed a rule to limit CO2 from any new plants to be built. EPA later announced a delay to the finalizing of that rule.

Then, in September 2013, EPA released a modified version of its original proposal, opening the public comment period (Send a comment to the EPA), even though the rule hadn't been published in the federal register.

On January 8, EPA published the proposed rule in the register, which started the clock ticking on the final 60 days in which to comment on the rule -- the window will close on March 10.

The EPA will consider all comments and issue a final rule by June 2015, with states required to act (i.e., limit CO2 emissions from any new coal plants) by June 2016.

The authority to regulate CO2 from new power plants derives from Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS. (Here is some background for those of you who want to wade into the weeds on this.)

What about cleaning up the existing power plants?

There's another equally important front on this battle to slow climate change: limiting the CO2 that belches forth from existing coal plants. This will be an even tougher political battle than new plants. The EPA is scheduled to propose a standard aimed at existing plants this June.

Stay tuned.

Joy Bergey is federal policy director for PennFuture, based in Philadelphia.

A quick overview of EPA's plans for power plants

The EPA is finishing up a series of listening sessions (informal hearings) in 11 cities around the country to gather the public's thoughts on what the rule on existing power plants might look like. PennFuture took the lead in the Philadelphia listening session on November 8, helping to generate 76 testifiers in support of the rule, with 16 opposed and 2 neutral comments.

An overview of EPA's process for limiting CO2 from power plants

PennFuture is delighted to see the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moving ahead with plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants (the source of 40 percent of the country's global warming pollution). By the way, this forward motion by the EPA is required by law.

EPA is acting in parallel on two different aspects of power plant emissions: setting emissions standards on new (not-yet-built) power plants, and setting standards for existing power plants.

Quite different approaches are needed for regulating new versus existing plants, even though both are driven by the Clean Air Act. Here's a bit of background on each.

Regulating new power plants

You may recall that in April 2012, EPA first proposed a rule to limit CO2 from not-yet-built plants.  EPA later announced a delay to the finalizing of that rule.

In September 2013, EPA released a modified version of its original proposal, and the public comment period has been reopened. (Send a comment to the EPA). The EPA will consider all comments and issue a final rule by June 1, 2015, with states required to act (i.e., limit CO2 emissions from any new coal plants) by June 2016.

The regulation of new plants derives from Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, the New Source Performance Standards, or NSPS. Note that NSPS rules are applied at the plant level. For example, technology is incorporated into the power plant to capture or reduce CO2, and CO2 levels can be measured to ensure compliance (this is a somewhat simplified depiction). The emissions standards that were proposed include limiting CO2 emissions from 1,000-to-1,100 pounds of CO2/megawatt-hour. These emission rates are equivalent to a high efficiency, combined cycle natural gas plant.

This is quite different from the likely model for regulating existing power plants.

Regulating existing power plants

The EPA announced in October 2013 that it will formally propose a rule in June 2014 to regulate CO2 from existing power plants, driven by Section 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act.

Unlike new plants, where technology to limit CO2 can theoretically be incorporated when plants are designed and built, it's not always economically or technically feasible to retrofit existing power plants to limit CO2.

Hence, the approach will be entirely different from the NSPS rule on new plants. The rule on existing plants will likely be a regional approach, with a number of strategies deployed to lower the overall levels of atmospheric CO2 emissions within a given area. EPA will likely establish procedures and guidelines for the states to use in determining tailored strategies to meet emissions performance requirements. The states will develop these plans and seek review and approval from EPA to implement the emissions reduction strategies.

PennFuture hopes to provide input to the shaping of Pennsylvania's state plan. And we're quite optimistic that the state can meet the likely targets proposed by the EPA. The World Resources Institute has put together a terrific overview of how this might be accomplished in Pennsylvania.

Stay tuned for more information on this important and complex process as the rule takes shape in the months and years to come. You can trust us to keep you up to date.

Who, exactly, is the House trying to protect? (You won't like the answer.)

In its latest fit of craziness, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the totally misnamed "Energy Consumers Relief Act" earlier this month, before leaving for August recess. (I wish I could say that I'll miss them while they're gone. But I won't -- not most of them, in any event.)

As most readers of PennFuture blogs will know, for more than a decade, Congress has been unable or unwilling to pass legislation to limit carbon pollution. President Obama took things into his own hands (as required by law) by announcing his climate plan in June.

So what did the fossil-fuel-loving science deniers in the House feel compelled to do? Pass a ridiculous bill that would restrict the government's ability to enact environmental regulations.

One wonders who the 232 House members who voted for this measure are actually trying to protect. They are apparently unaware that our landmark environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act have actually saved consumers a great deal of money, while protecting their health.

PennFuture was especially sorry to read that Rep. Tim Murphy from southwestern Pa. made sure that the bill would require Congressional approval for the government to use "cost of carbon" valuation to calculate risks based on climate impacts.  Mr. Murphy seems more concerned with protecting coal's bottom line than his constituents' health -- or their wallets, for that matter.

As usual in this Congress, it's up to the Senate to stop this crazy bill from becoming law. Unfortunately, we're pretty sure that Sen. Pat Toomey will side with big industry and vote the wrong way, but we are pulling for Sen. Bob Casey to truly protect the citizens of Pennsylvania.

Hey, Sen. Toomey -- if you prove me wrong and vote against this bill, I'll sing your praises to all my friends and colleagues. I promise!

(Click here to see how the rest of the Pa. delegation voted. No surprises, alas.)