This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-is-readying-climate-rule-for-existing-power-plants-as-deadline-approaches/2014/05/21/8d1c0b5c-e088-11e3-9743-bb9b59cde7b9_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
EPA is readying climate rule for existing power plants as deadline approaches EPA is readying climate rule for existing power plants as deadline approaches
(about 7 hours later)
With less than two weeks to go, the Environmental Protection Agency is readying a climate rule for existing power plants that requires steep carbon reductions while allowing states and companies broad flexibility in how they limit their overall greenhouse gas emissions. With less than two weeks to go, the Environmental Protection Agency is readying a climate rule for existing power plants that requires a steep reduction in carbon emissions while allowing states and companies broad flexibility in how they limit overall greenhouse gas discharges.
While key aspects of the proposal are still under discussion, according to several individuals briefed on the matter, the measure will spur regional carbon trading regimes on the East and West coasts and is likely to spur a legal challenge from some utilities. As currently drafted, the rule would cut greenhouse gas emissions from the utility sector by 25 percent, individuals said, but the baseline for that reduction has not been finalized. While key aspects of the proposal are still under discussion, according to several individuals briefed on the matter, the measure will spur regional carbon-trading programs on the East and West coasts and is likely to draw a legal challenge from some utilities. As currently drafted, the rule would cut greenhouse gas emissions from the utility sector by 25 percent, the individuals said, but the baseline for that reduction has not been finalized.
The EPA plan resembles proposals made by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which would allow states and companies to employ a variety of measures — including new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects “outside the fence,” or away from the power plant site itself — to meet their carbon reduction target. The exact level of reduction will vary by state, according to those familiar with the rule, and it will consist of a two-step process that will have smaller reductions at first and larger ones by 2030. The EPA plan resembles proposals made by the Natural Resources Defense Council, which would allow states and companies to employ a variety of measures — including new renewable energy and energy efficiency projects “outside the fence,” or away from the power plant site — to meet their carbon reduction target. While the overall target may fall slightly short of what environmentalists have pressed for, the approach is in line with their push to make major cuts in greenhouse gases while seeking to soften the impact on consumer electricity prices.
Coal-intensive utilities, coal mining companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, conservative think tanks and a dozen or so state attorneys general have lined up to challenge the basis for the EPA’s impending draft regulations for limiting carbon dioxide emissions at existing coal plants. They have taken aim both at the likelihood that the EPA will set emissions targets and at any approach that isn’t limited to a specific plant site. Usually when the EPA regulates pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the agency sets an emission limit for each facility. By contrast, under a “mass-based system,” which the EPA is poised to adopt, states would have to meet an overall target for greenhouse gas emissions and ensure that power plants either make those reductions at their facilities or finance efforts to achieve them in other ways, such as by reducing consumer energy demand or investing in carbon-free electricity generation.
“Any standard that is set predicated on reductions happening outside the fence line are illegal and would be overturned by the court,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton and Williams and represents several utility companies. “And I think they know that.” The size of the reductions will vary by state, according to those familiar with the rule, and it will consist of a two-step process that will require smaller carbon cuts at first and larger ones by 2030.
The proposed rule, which will be announced June 2, represents the centerpiece of President Obama’s climate action plan. Utilities account for roughly 40 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions, with much of it coming from the aging, coal-fired fleet. Coal-intensive utilities, coal mining companies, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, conservative think tanks and a dozen or so state Republican attorneys general have lined up to potentially challenge the EPA’s proposal. They question any approach that isn’t tied to a specific plant site, in part because it may require utilities to make deeper emissions cuts than they would otherwise achieve by installing demonstrated pollution controls.
“This is a magic moment for the President — a chance to write his name into the record books,” wrote Frank O’Donnell, who directs the advocacy group Clean Air Watch. “But history will ultimately judge this less by an excellent speech than by the final contents and outcome of this initiative.” “Any standard that is predicated on reductions happening outside the fence line is illegal and would be overturned by the court,” said Joseph Stanko, who heads government relations at the law firm Hunton & Williams and represents several utility companies.
The EPA declined to comment on the draft rule. Both Bloomberg News and Reuters reported some of the proposals over the past few days. The proposed rule, which will be announced June 2, represents the centerpiece of President Obama’s climate action plan. Utilities account for roughly 40 percent of the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.
Kelly Speakes-Backman, who is both commissioner of the Maryland Public Service Commission and chairs the board of directors of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state emissions trading compact, said in an interview last week that a “mass-based” system allows states and utilities to cut carbon in a more efficient and cost-effective way. Under this system, which is what the EPA is poised to adopt, states will have to meet an overall greenhouse gas limit rather than a specific rate per hour for each power plant. “This is a magic moment for the President — a chance to write his name into the record books,” Frank O’Donnell, who directs the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, wrote in an e-mail. “But history will ultimately judge this less by an excellent speech than by the final contents and outcome of this initiative.”
“What are we ultimately trying to do? We’re trying to reduce carbon in the atmosphere,” she said, adding: “What RGGI has been doing sets almost a plug-and-play model for other states to adopt.” The EPA declined to comment on the draft rule. Both Bloomberg News and Reuters have reported some aspects of it over the past few days.
Some, like Washington state, are eager to follow the example of the East Coast and California, both of whom have adopted emission-trading schemes. The RGGI program applies only to power plants while California’s system is much broader; the states participating in the RGGI system cut their emissions by more than 40 percent between 2005 and 2012. Kelly Speakes-Backman, who is commissioner of the Maryland Public Service Commission and chairs the board of directors of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a nine-state emissions trading compact, said in an interview last week that a mass-based system allows states and utilities to cut carbon in a more efficient and cost-effective way. Under this system, states must meet an overall greenhouse gas limit rather than a specific rate per hour for each power plant.
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is traveling this week to Utah, Washington and Oregon, where she will meet with each state’s governor and also hold public events. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has pressed the EPA to adopt a strict carbon standard and is currently pushing for several policies so his state can meet its goal of reducing its overall emissions 20 percent by 2020. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is traveling this week to Utah, Washington and Oregon, where she will meet with the states’ governors.
Stu Clark, air program manager at the state’s Ecology Department, said the EPA has conducted “an unprecedented outreach” in crafting the rule. He added that depending on how stiff the requirements are, Washington may need to strike a regional compact with other states even though its utility sector is relatively clean. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee (D) has pressed the EPA to adopt a strict carbon standard and is currently pushing for several policies so his state can reduce its overall emissions to its 1990 level by 2020, and 50 percent below that by 2050.
“If it’s a really stringent standard, we will need to look at a broader suite of tools,” Clark said. Other states are resisting the EPA plan. Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, for example, argued at the National Press Club Tuesday that the Clean Air Act gives states the power to determine what pollution standards should be and how to achieve them. Only later, he said, can the EPA reject a state’s plan and impose its own, so the EPA’s task now is to design a procedure and general emissions guidelines.
Other states are more resistant. Oklahoma Attorney General E. Scott Pruitt, for example, argued at the National Press Club Tuesday that the Clean Air Act gives states the power to determine what pollution standards should be and how to achieve them. Only later, he said, can the EPA reject a state’s plan and impose its own, so the EPA’s task now is to design a procedure and general emissions guidelines. He said it was reducing the states “from a substantive to an administrative role.”
“I find it offensive that the EPA feels regulators in states are not interested in air quality or pollution,” he said. And he said that the EPA has a “dictatorial attitude that as long as you agree with us, everything is kosher.”“I find it offensive that the EPA feels regulators in states are not interested in air quality or pollution,” he said. And he said that the EPA has a “dictatorial attitude that as long as you agree with us, everything is kosher.”
Pruitt also said that EPA can only regulate single sites “unit by unit” rather than offer states and utilities the flexibility of meeting new guidelines through energy efficiency programs or renewable investments that might not be on the site of a regulated coal plant. Pruitt said that in such an approach “EPA is using its power to pick winners and losers.” Pruitt also said that EPA can only regulate single sites “unit by unit” rather than offer states and utilities the flexibility of meeting new guidelines through energy efficiency programs or renewable investments that might not be on the site of a regulated coal plant.
But David Doniger, policy director for NRDC’s climate and clean air program, said the EPA does have the authority to set an overall carbon limit. Since there was a limited amount of improvement to boost the efficiency of existing coal plants, he said, using the broader approach could help meet deeper reductions in carbon emissions at lower costs. But David Doniger, policy director for NRDC’s climate and clean air program, said the EPA does have the authority to set an overall carbon limit — authority that was recognized by the Supreme Court in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut and Massachusetts v. EPA. “I don’t think there’s much ambiguity there,” he said.
Doniger said that the EPA’s authority had been clearly recognized by the Supreme Court both in American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut and in Massachusetts v. EPA. “I don’t think there’s much ambiguity there,” he said. NRDC supports establishing a three-year baseline for power plant emissions, which would start either in 2005 or 2008, and allowing states and utilities to take credit for anything — new nuclear plants, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage — that reduces carbon emissions.
NRDC supports establishing a three-year baseline for power plant emissions, starting either in 2005 or 2008, and allow states and utilities to take credit for anything — new nuclear plants, energy efficiency, carbon capture and storage — that reduced carbon emissions. The EPA’s proposal is likely to resemble renewable portfolio standards already in effect in about 30 states and the District of Columbia, which require a certain portion of the state’s electricity to come from non-fossil fuel energy. Those states would likely have an easier time meeting new guidelines for existing plants if the EPA opts for an “outside the fence” approach to power plants.
Pruitt also attacked a plan drawn up for Kentucky that he said was based on “mass emissions.” He said it would act as a “cap and trade system — without the trading.” Some companies that have invested heavily in nuclear power — such as the energy firm Exelon, where nearly 91 percent of its fleet is nuclear — back a strict carbon standard for existing plants. Joe Dominguez, Exelon’s senior vice president of governmental, regulatory affairs and public policy, said several of the company’s 24 units may not be economically viable if the EPA’s proposal is not stringent enough.
In fact, the EPA’s proposal is likely to more closely resemble renewable portfolio standards already in effect in about 30 states and the District of Columbia. Those states would likely have an easier time meeting new guidelines for existing plants if the EPA opts for an “outside the fence” approach to power plants. “We think the reality is in the absence of carbon policy, it’s going to be difficult to keep the existing [base] of clean energy in service,” he said.
Utility executives say that the retirement of coal plants dating back to the Eisenhower era could also help meet targets if companies are allowed to average steps taken at one site with emissions at another. The wind industry is also lobbying for an “outside the fence” approach so that companies can add wind power as a strategy. “The EPA rule is going to be doable and affordable assuming wind and other renewables count,” said Tom Vinson of the American Wind Energy Association.
Some companies who have invested heavily in nuclear power — such as Exelon, where nearly 91 percent of its fleet is nuclear — backs a strict carbon standard for existing plants. Joe Dominguez, Exelon’s senior vice president of governmental, regulatory affairs and public policy, said several of its 24 units may not be economically viable if the EPA’s proposal is not stringent. steven.mufson@washpost.com
“We think the reality is in the absence of carbon policy, it’s going to be difficult to keep the existing baseload of clean energy in service,” he said.
The wind industry is also lobbying for an “outside the fence” approach so that companies can add wind power as a strategy. “The EPA rule is going to be doable and affordable assuming wind and other renewables count,” said Tom Vinson of the American Wind Energy Association. Rob Gramlich, senior vice president for public policy at AWEA added: “if EPA rules only apply inside the fence, less stringent standards will be needed.”
Vinson said existing coal plants could achieve no more than 3 to 5 percent efficiency gains, far less than the carbon emission cuts the EPA is expected to demand.
More from The Washington Post:More from The Washington Post:
Warming impact is already severeWarming impact is already severe
Obama targets methane gas emissionsObama targets methane gas emissions
Melting ice sheet is unstoppableMelting ice sheet is unstoppable
Map: Global temps will exceed historical norms as soon as 2047Map: Global temps will exceed historical norms as soon as 2047