Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
2/20/2015
As the Environmental Protection Agency wades through the millions of comments received on its proposed carbon emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants, various common themes concerning timeline, stringency, cost and reliability have been raised and addressing those comments will result in a more flexible final rule, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said this week during the winter meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. “If you look at the history of EPA, you will know that we have a solid track record when it comes to our rules, particularly those related to the utility industry and those that are related to concerns of reliability of the power system, and each and every time we have learned from that comment period and we have made changes as a result of considerations of those comments, changes which always resulted in more flexibility and addressed the issues related to both reliability and cost. This rule will be no different,” McCarthy said.
The proposed regulation, dubbed the Clean Power Plan, sets state-specific emissions reductions goals and requires states to develop action plans to meet those goals. The regulation is due to be finalized mid-summer. McCarthy declined to give any more specific information on what changes could be expected or a narrower range of dates for the rule’s finalization, stating that “I cannot tell you a whole lot more and give you a whole lot of signals about how the final rule will look … [but] I think I gave you a pretty big hint that the dialogue and the comments that we received have been enormously useful.”
Early Action Incentivized in FY16 Budget Request
McCarthy did suggest that one common issue that has been raised is being addressed in the EPA’s FY16 budget request, which proposes a $4 billion fund which would be available to states that go beyond the carbon emissions reduction goals outlined in the proposed regulation. The fund is intended to help address questions regarding the lack of an incentive to take actions to reduce emissions prior to the beginning of the rule’s timeframe. “NARUC has commented on the issue of getting credit for pre-2020 actions. This fund, $4 billion, is going to help incentivize investments between now and 2020 and investments that will put states on a path towards greater reductions than are required under the rule. Its $4 billion that states can tap into if their plans … are faster than their goals,” McCarthy said.
Timeline for Implementation Could Change
In separate remarks at this week’s meeting, acting Assistant EPA Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation Janet McCabe indicated that the timeline for implementation of the proposed regulations could change as the EPA works to finalize them. Some states have said the proposed rules are unworkable due, in part, to a timeline that calls for a certain percentage of a state’s reduction to occur prior to the 2030 deadline. “That issue is very, very, much on the table,” McCabe said. “The time for implementation is certainly a part of the [Best System of Emissions Reduction] determination and we thought about that very carefully as we put those building blocks together and developed the interim target … based on the information we had at the time of the proposal about what was workable. I will absolutely agree that we’ve gotten a tremendous amount of input, very fact based, from people who know what they’re doing, who are in the business, who are pointing out ways in which we didn’t get that right.”
Kenneth Anderson, Texas Public Utility Commissioner, said Texas simply cannot meet the EPA’s interim goal. “Under the proposed rule, by 2020 we’re supposed to achieve about 72 percent of that objective. That is physically impossible and in fact, I believe that, basically if it’s not eliminated then Texas is left really with no other option than just saying no,” Anderson said. Other commissioners said that the rule as it has been proposed is unfeasible within their unique sets of circumstances. “I think it’s pretty clear this is not workable for us,” said Alan Minier, a member of the Wyoming Public Service Commission. Minier said his state is home to eight of the 10 largest coal mines in the country and that by its own analysis the state has concluded that at least four of its coal plants would have to be closed to meet their EPA-set goal.
