Grid operators and 21 States say to EPA: STOP NEW POWER REGS!

The Nation's largest power grids, trade groups and 21 states all said EPA's proposed regulations threaten the reliability and affordability U.S. power grids and should be withdrawn.

Last May, the EPA asked for public comments by August 8, 2023, on their proposed rules to reduce power plant carbon emissions. They got an ear-full from grid operators, trade associations, and a coalition of states, conveying a powerful message to EPA: abandon your proposed regulations.

A 28-page letter from four of the nation’s largest power grid operators conveyed a strong and clear message to EPA: do not implement your proposed new rules, or you will be responsible for “materially and adversely impact(ing) electric reliability. This was the clear and unambiguous message from a group of four of the nation’s largest grid operators: ERCOT (Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Inc., MISO (Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., PJM (PJM Interconnection), and SPP (Southwest Power Pool, Inc.

The Edison Electric Institute, the power sector’s largest lobby group, representing investor-owned electric company members that provide electricity for more than 235 million Americans, said the EPAs proposed new rules and timetable could “create a shortage of fossil-fuel-based generation that is essential to maintaining a stable power grid, especially during extreme weather when wind and solar power often fail.” They backed up their conclusions with a 213-page in-depth analysis.

Writing on behalf of a 21-state coalition, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said that “EPA has no more authority to mandate this result indirectly that it did when it tried to do so directly,” referencing the EPA “Clean Power Plan,” which the Supreme Court shot down last year.

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA), representing 900 rural electric cooperatives, was incredibly blunt:

EPA’s proposal is the wrong plan at a critical time for our nation’s energy future,” Matheson said. It is unrealistic, unachievable, and will reduce key generating resources just as Americans are increasing their reliance on electricity. From deploying microgrids and renewables to launching demand response programs, electric cooperatives take an innovative and diverse approach as they work towards a responsible energy future. But expecting the industry to generate more electricity with fewer resources while adhering to unrealistic timelines is not a serious or practical approach. (emphasis added)

The energy future outlined by the EPA will result in more blackouts, higher costs, and greater uncertainty for Americans. And it will magnify today’s reliability challenges with grave consequences for an already stressed electric grid. When you find yourself in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. The EPA needs to put down their shovel. (emphasis added)

NRECA urged the agency to withdraw the proposal in its entirety, saying:

• The proposal hinges on the widespread adoption of nascent technologies:  clean hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. While both technologies are promising, they are not yet widespread or commercially available and have not been “adequately demonstrated” as required by the Clean Air Act.

• The proposal violates the Clean Air Act by giving the EPA vast new authority of major economic and political significance without a clear statement from Congress. This disregards the “major questions doctrine” and is inconsistent with the text, structure, and context of Clean Air Act Section 111. 

• The proposed rules contain timelines that are unrealistic and unachievable. The compliance deadlines endanger new and existing natural gas plants and all but ensure coal units will opt to shut down by 2035. The requisite infrastructure cannot be expected to be in place due to cost, supply chain challenges, permitting, public opposition, land ownership/access, and more.

• The proposed rules threaten reliability and affordability.

These comments are consistent with my observations published in my June 30, 2023, Substack article titled “EPA proposes anti-fossil fuel regulations to limit climate change that will destroy US power grids,” which said:

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new greenhouse gas standards for fossil-fuel-fired power plants. These regulations are so draconian they could destroy the US power grid. The EPA plan is the “nuclear option” of regulations because the EPA is not just proposing new regulations designed to meet more stringent clean air standards with fines if the criteria are not met. Instead, EPA seeks to impose unachievable CO2 emissions targets that will shut down existing coal and natural gas power plants and threaten the viability of the nation’s power grids. More importantly, the rules and regulations are phased in starting in 2024, meaning that the effect is that baseload generation sources, such as natural gas and coal, may not be built because these regulations shorten the economic life of such projects. This threatens the viability of the grids within a few years, not sometime in the distant future.

The problem with the EPA proposed rules, as pointed out by all of these comments, is that they effectively eliminate two of the three dispatchable power sources, coal, and natural gas, needed to maintain the stability of power grids.

Rumors are that the original version of these proposed regulations focused only on coal-fired generating plants. But when EPA ran a near-final draft by the White House, they demanded that it include strict rules on natural gas generation. So EPA did a last-minute rewrite that included harsh rules on natural gas generation but cut some corners to do it. Realizing that they were effectively eliminating all fossil fuels from power generation, EPA stuck in carbon capture and storage (CCS) and hydrogen as “get out of jail” cards, saying that these were proven and cost-effective technologies, which of course, is not true.

Grid operators are having difficulty maintaining stable electrical grids due to an over-abundance of wind and solar power generation because wind and solar are weather dependent. As noted in my recent article, “Texas grid reaches record high generation as wind power fails,” the only dependable tools grid operators have to maintain grid stability are dispatchable generation such as coal, nuclear, and natural gas. The proposed EPA proposed rules eliminate those tools.

Robert Bryce provided the following statement that captures the arguments these industry organizations made to EPA:

If we are facing more extreme weather due to climate change, it would be insane to make our most-critical infrastructure dependent on the weather. We need energy and power systems that are weather resilient, not weather dependent.

EPA needs to listen to these electricity providers and abandon its proposed regulations that effectively ban dependable, non-weather-dependent coal and natural gas generation.

As NRECA said, it is time for EPA to recognize reality and act accordingly: “When you find yourself in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. The EPA needs to put down their shovel.”

Thank you for reading “Thoughts about Energy and Economics.” This is a reader-supported publication, so please “Like” it, share it with friends and colleagues, and become a paid subscriber. Your support is greatly appreciated!