REP. INTRODUCES BILL TO BAR EPA GHG PERFORMANCE STANDARDS UNTIL CCS IS COMMERCIALIZED

Provision Would Require Three Federal Agencies to Sign off on Technology’s Feasibility

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
07/27/12

A House Republican introduced a bill this week that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency from finalizing greenhouse gas emission performance standards for new or existing fossil fuel-fired power plants until carbon capture and storage technology is deemed economically and technically feasible by at least three government agencies. Sponsored by Rep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.), the legislation would prevent EPA from moving forward on the standards, which were agreed to as part of a legal settlement with a group of states and environmental groups, until three of four specified government agencies—the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory, the Energy Information Administration, the Government Accountability Office or the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology—conclude that carbon capture has become technologically and economically feasible. “We need to give the technology and research time to catch up before imposing this new requirement,” McKinley said in a statement. Nine members, including five Democrats from mostly coal-bearing regions, signed on as co-sponsors.

Earlier this spring, EPA proposed a greenhouse gas emissions performance standard of 1,000 lbs of CO2 per MWh for all new fossil fuel-fired units above 25 MW. That emissions rate is roughly on par with a natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) unit, and would essentially require developers interested in building a coal unit to install carbon capture technology or switch to NGCC. At the time of the rule’s release, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the rulemaking would provide a pathway forward for coal via CCS, and that the agency would be more flexible for developers that choose to install CCS technology via a multi-decade averaging pathway, allowing the technology to fully commercialize over the next decade. “CCS is on the path to being viable,” Jackson told reporters in March. “It is being permitted and built and demonstrated today, and it will become increasingly used.”

‘Unreasonable’ Standard

Despite the averaging provision, opponents of the performance standard have said that the proposal is a marquee example of the Obama Administration’s “war on coal.” At a House Energy and Power Subcommittee field hearing last week in Abingdon, Va., several coal company executives said the current high cost of CCS would drive utilities towards building natural gas technology. “Simply put, performance standards will not succeed at forcing the adoption of CCS technologies,” Dominion CEO Thomas Farrell said. “The CCS requirement will create an insurmountable hurdle to obtaining financing and securing public utility commission approval for new coal stations.” At another hearing on the standard held last month in front of the same subcommittee, CONSOL Energy Vice President and FutureGen Alliance Chairman of the Board Steven Winberg said that CCS will not be commercially available in the period of time EPA is projecting. “We are 10 to 15 years away from when CCS suppliers can be able to provide guarantees, and that assumes we have a significant funding available to commercialize CCS—something we do not currently have,” Winberg said, adding that even utilities that are enthusiastic about CCS will likely pursue alternatives given the proposed compliance timeline.

McKinley called the performance standards “unreasonable,” arguing that while CCS is a “reasonable concept,” it is not yet a fully attainable technology. “This preliminary EPA rule could literally cripple the future of coal because the implementation of carbon capture is not yet technologically or economically feasible,” he said. “Utilities will simply stop building coal fired power plants and switch to gas fired units.” 

Supporters Say Standard is Attainable

Supporters of the rulemaking said that the rule will be able to spur CCS development because of EPA’s flexibilities. David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resources Defense Council’s climate and clean air program, said that the technology is currently available at the same hearing as Winberg last month. “This is something that can be done now,” Doniger said, adding: “NRDC agrees that carbon capture and storage-equipped plants are technically feasible today and can meet the proposed standard,” he said. “We support provisions that EPA has included to facilitate construction of those plants.” At another hearing last month, House Energy and Commerce Committee Ranking Member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) defended the standards, saying that Republicans are looking to give coal special treatment. “Coal and natural gas are both fuels used to generate electricity. They’re market competitors,” he said. “What my Republican colleagues appear to want is for EPA to treat coal differently than other fuels, particularly natural gas. They wanted EPA to give coal a pass for the pollution it generates when burned.”