Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
5/16/2014
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received more than one million comments on the proposed New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) at the close of the comment period last Friday, as stakeholders weighed in on number of issues including the current viability of carbon capture and storage technology. Comments, both positive and negative, poured in from nongovernmental organizations, private sector businesses, state agencies and a variety of other interested parties, many referencing the EPA claim that CCS is technically feasible. The standards, which are due to be released June 2, largely mandate the use of CCS for new coal-fired power plants, a rule that’s drawn much criticism.
States Push Back
The rule has not been well received among coal states, many of which have been actively speaking out against the measure, as well as the upcoming existing source performance standards. Common criticisms of the rules include the effect such a measure may have on the economies of coal states. Comments from the Energy and Environment Cabinet of the State of Kentucky stated, “This proposed rule effectively eliminates Kentucky’s future ability to rely on our most abundant natural resource–coal. The substitution of natural gas for coal is not a long-term solution for climate change and potentially results in disastrous short-term consequences of decreasing state gross domestic product, rising unemployment, dramatically fluctuating prices that negatively impact consumers, increasing security risks and decreasing the standard of living for many Kentuckians.”
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection commented more harshly on the perceived “ban on coal” stating, “The proposed rule acts as a de facto mandate from EPA that forces utilities to switch from coal-fired generation to natural gas in the future. The proposal can be construed as an attempt by EPA to pick ‘winners and losers’ in the market place. It is not appropriate or reasonable for an environmental agency to make these types of policy judgments.” Further criticism from Pennsylvania questioned the EPA’s right to develop such regulations. “While the proposal can be characterized as an environmental regulation, the practical effect is the establishment of an energy policy for the United States. It is the opinion of DEP that such policy decisions are better left to the United States Congress and should not be made by a regulatory agency.”
Even outside of the coal states many state environmental agencies submitted comments, including Mississippi, home to the Kemper County Energy Facility. Kemper has been used as an example by the EPA in its claim that CCS is technically feasible. In comments, the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality noted the unique location of the plant and on-going issues delaying full operation at the plant. “One of the reasons CCS technology was technically feasible for this facility is that there is an available pipeline for the CO2 to be used for tertiary oil recovery. If this situation did not exist, the carbon capture would not be suitable for this project. Further, construction of the facility with the IGCC and CCS technology has met several delays and has cost significantly more than originally planned. Even though it was originally scheduled to be operating by now, it is not currently expected to be operating until 2015.”
Of the many states submitting comments, few had supportive statements to offer, with the exclusion of Connecticut, who’s Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) wrote: “DEEP strongly supports the 111(b) Standards proposed by EPA and strongly supports using Clean Air Act (CAA) provisions such as NSPS to begin to address climate change more comprehensively across the United States. Even more so, given that the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that carbon and other GHGs are "air pollutants," DEEP believes the CAA compels EPA to take these steps. Likewise, DEEP believes that EPA’s proposed 111(b) Standards for new sources triggers EPA’s duty to propose guideline documents for States to develop plans to regulate existing sources under CAA section 111(d).“
Mixed Reactions from NGOs, Industry Groups
The EPA’s call for comments received a large number of responses from nongovernmental organizations and industry groups with a wide range of beliefs concerning the use of CCS and the need for regulation. Many criticisms echoed the state’s beliefs that requiring CCS would effectively be a ban on new coal-fired energy facilities while others gave a focus to the legitimacy of the EPA’s claim that the technology is technically feasible. The American Coal Council (ACC) criticized the measure as a potential killer of technological advancement, writing, “EPA’s presumption that the rule drives technology and that costs will decrease over time does not hold up since the rule dramatically tilts the playing field away from new coal plants and will prohibit the construction of new facilities where those technologies would be employed. Why would developers continue down the CCS and clean coal technology path? … Without ongoing, meaningful governmental support for CCS to propel development beyond first generation technologies and a reasonable timeline to achieve development, too many obstacles and too much uncertainty exists for private developers to move forward. Department of Energy (DOE) programs for federal investments in technologies to reduce emissions have played an essential role for decades, and that role should continue for carbon reduction technologies. Public and private investments to develop mature technologies should be encouraged. However, this EPA rule will have the opposite effect.”
Nevertheless, still others made the opposite claim, saying that the rule will provide a necessary push to increase the development of CCS technologies. “Given its cost, power companies currently have little reason to invest in CCS projects. To counter this, CCS in the power sector needs the combination of a regulatory driver and financial support. Requiring CCS for new coal plants would send a clear regulatory signal to power companies, their investors, and utility regulators that power companies will need to invest in CCS technology in order to utilize the energy value of coal well into the future,” the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) wrote in their comments.
Little Support in Industry
Several big players in the CCS industry also submitted comments, generally stating CCS is not ready for commercial scale deployment and echoing the idea that adopting such a regulation could hinder technological advances. “CCS is a truly evolving technology and will be critical to achieving significant GHG reductions when the technology is deployable at scale and when the standards are geared to meaningful reductions in GHG emissions. In Alstom’s view, EPA’s suggestion that Carbon Capture or Sequestration is currently “adequately demonstrated” or available for deployment at commercial scale overstates the current technology development … Requiring the application of carbon, capture, and storage (CCS) to coal has the potential to distort the market. Coal with CCS under normal market conditions would not compete with Natural gas without CCS due the extreme capital cost of the CCS equipment and additional operating cost as currently viewed by both generators and developers and even in Department of Energy (DOE) [National Energy Technology Laboratory] studies. Thus, anyone building new generation would logically build Natural Gas Combined-Cycle [plants],” Alstom said in their comments.
The Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W), another supplier for CCS technology made similar comments. “B&W is fully supportive of reducing CO2 emissions through deployment of high efficiency fossil plant designs, nuclear power, renewable energy technologies and CO2 capture systems-when they have been proven to be technically and commercially viable. We believe that coal should remain an energy option for new power plants in the U.S. to help assure a strong economy and our future energy security.”
