The EPA wants to eliminate climate pollution from power plants

Environmental Impact of a Proposed Carbon Capture Moonshot for the U.S. Coal Power Plants under the EPA’s Supermajority Decision

Still, the coal industry may have the most to lose under this proposal. There are 158 active coal power plants according to the Sierra Club. Despite the EPA’s analysis, the National Mining Association says carbon capture technology is not yet “technically and fully economically demonstrated.” The organization wanted to conduct a carbon capture moonshot.

Carbon capture technologies scrub a portion of CO2 out of smokestack emissions. They can assist coal and gas-fired plants by helping them meet the EPA’s new caps on Greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA administrator Michael Regan said that the rules would need to reduce carbon pollution based on proven and cost-effective control technologies.

Regan says the regulation would also bring health benefits by reducing other air pollutants, such as particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide. The EPA says the proposed rules will prevent 1,300 premature deaths, 800 hospital and emergency room visits, and 300,000 asthma attacks. The agency values the net climate and health benefits at between $85 billion and $950 billion, due to the rules increasing electricity prices a negligible amount.

To make things even dicier for the Biden administration, the Supreme Court recently gutted a major policy tool that could limit the EPA’s authority over power plant operations. Its decision on West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency last June essentially said that the agency can try to limit greenhouse gas emissions, but not in a way that determines what sources of energy the US uses. That decision made it more likely that the EPA would have to lean into carbon capture in its strategy.

Deploying expensive carbon capture devices could saddle consumers with higher electricity bills, according to research published earlier this year based on data from Australia. The cost of electricity from power plants outfitted with carbon capture devices is at least 1.5 to 2 times more expensive than solar, wind, or traditional gas and coal, according to a report from the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.

Owners of those plants have been allowed to spew climate-warming carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere for more than a century. If these proposed regulations are finalized, they would come close to putting a stop to that practice.

The rules will face opposition and a legal challenge from the fossil fuel industry, so environmental groups welcomed them.

“EPA’s proposal requires proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the opportunity already available to move toward a cleaner future, which is why it relies on proven, readily available technologies,” said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.

The regulations also would help the U.S. meet its obligations under the 2015 Paris climate agreement, and they would be crucial in meeting President Biden’s goal of zeroing out carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035.

The EPA is required to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act according to a Supreme Court decision.

President Biden was the most ambitious candidate to address climate change in the history of the United States, with a goal of stopping carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere by mid-century.

Scientists say that’s what’s needed to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-industrial levels and avoid the worst effects of climate change. Global average temperatures have already risen about 1.1 degrees Celsius.

The West Virginia Clean Power Plan: Resilient Coal-Fired Power Plants as a Defense of Renewable Electricity and the Clean Gas Sector

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.

Coal remains a major industry in West Virginia and preserving coal-fired electricity is a priority for many people there. State regulators recently approved a $3 million per month surcharge on customers’ bills to keep a coal plant from shutting down 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.”

Critics argue the regulations will force gas and coal-fired power plants to shut down and leave the grid vulnerable to power cuts. But EPA Administrator Regan says this issue was considered. He recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Energy that is aimed at keeping the grid reliable and stable.