Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
5/2/2014
PITTSBURGH, Pa.—The question of to what degree new regulations can aid, or hamper, the development of new CCS technologies was a key point of discussion here this week at this year’s Annual CCUS conference. Former Wyoming Governor David Freudenthal said that a regulation which, instead of laying out an end goal, lays out a path to an unknown goal has a negative effect on technological advances because it stops the development of new paths toward the end goal, carbon reductions. “Instead of giving people a shot to see if [new technology] will work, you’re essentially stifling, through regulatory process, the evolution of technology,” he said.
The debate came as the Environmental Protection Agency has faced criticism for its proposed New Source Performance Standards, which would virtually mandate CCS technologies for any new coal-fired power plants. The EPA is also in the final stages of developing regulations for existing power plants, set to be issued this summer. Ben Yamagata, Executive Director of the Coal Research Utilization Council, criticized the EPA’s proposed regulations for new plants at this week’s conference. “We’re not going to [reach our goals] through the proposed NSPS program and let me just say that the EPA rule, in our view, is not technology derived on the drivers that the agency has been arguing,” Yamagata said. “We do not have sufficient carbon defunding support. There are no foreseeable incentives to move projects beyond the currently heavily subsidized first generation demonstration.”
He went on to say, “There appears to be no market based entry points for new coal plants even without CCS technology and under these realities, I think what really happens to technology in particular is the research and development pipeline dries up and the next improved plant, using lessons learned and installing newly developed better technology, never happens.”
This argument was also the topic of lengthy debate at a concurrent session later in the conference when panelists from a number of states discussed if regulation was even necessary in reducing carbon emissions. Panelists considered the idea that the industry may take steps to reduce carbon emissions and develop technologies without any regulations, on a moral basis alone. While some members of the panel believed that it could work, others doubted it, noting mainly economic instability in their states, which may deter industry from moving forward in such a way without incentives.
Need to Look Beyond U.S.
A further criticism of regulations in the U.S. is the narrow focus. “No matter how successful you are in handling coal consumption in the United States, you’ve done little to nothing with regard to CO2 emissions around the world. So a policy that is intended to reduce CO2 emissions in the United States is of interest to those of us who live in America … but in terms of its overall affect, it’s not that great,” Freudenthal stated. Yamagata also spoke of international effects of U.S. regulation, suggesting that the U.S. needs to be at the forefront of technological advances as it is not his opinion that China or India, both large emitters of CO2, will take the initiative to develop said technologies.
