Get 40% Off
These stocks are up over 10% post earnings. Did you spot the buying opportunity? Our AI did.Read how

Biden's carbon proposal is unworkable, US power sector warns

Published 08/08/2023, 02:04 PM
Updated 08/09/2023, 03:45 AM
© Reuters. FILE PHOTO: This undated handout image shows the carbon sequesterization unit at American Electric Power Company's Mountaineer Plant near New Haven, West Virginia.   REUTERS/Tom Dubanowich/Handout  /File Photo

By Nichola Groom and Valerie Volcovici

(Reuters) -U.S. power plant owners warned the Biden administration on Tuesday that its sweeping plan to slash carbon emissions from the electricity sector is unworkable, relying too heavily on costly technologies that are not yet proven at scale.

Top utility trade group the Edison Electric Institute (EEI) asked the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for revisions of the proposed power plant standards, which hinge on the widespread commercial availability of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and low-emissions green hydrogen, adding the agency's vision was "not legally or technically sound."

"Electric companies are not confident that the new technologies EPA has designated to serve as the basis for proposed standards for new and existing fossil-based generation will satisfy performance and cost requirements on the timelines that EPA projects," EEI said in a public comment released on Tuesday on the agency's deadline for feedback.

Resistance from the EEI and other energy-related groups poses a potentially big challenge to the administration's climate agenda.

U.S. President Joe Biden has a goal to achieve net-zero emissions by 2035 in the power sector, the source of a quarter of the nation's climate-warming gases. That target is a central part of Washington's pledge to halve U.S. greenhouse gas output by 2030 as part of an international agreement to fight global climate change.

Proposed in May, the EPA plan would for the first time limit how much carbon dioxide power plants can emit, after previous efforts were struck down in court.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

West Virginia, which led a lawsuit against the Obama-era Clean Power Plan, also said it and 20 other states were opposed to the rule because the standards would leave coal plant operators with no choice but to close.

The proposed limits for both new and existing power plants assume availability of CCS technology that can siphon the CO2 from a plant’s smokestack before it reaches the atmosphere, or the use of hydrogen as a fuel. The EPA said that last year's passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which subsidizes those technologies, makes them cost-effective and viable.

Environmental groups Clean Air Task Force and Natural Resources Defense Council said the proposal "provides generous lead times for implementation and compliance and will not cause reliability problems if finalized."

Industry is particularly concerned about proposed standards for existing natural gas power plants, saying those facilities would be hard to retrofit with CCS, or hydrogen, due to space constraints and other limitations.

The biggest U.S. power grid operator, PJM Interconnection, and three other operators, serving a total of 154 million customers, raised concern about a scenario where "needed technologies are not widely commercialized in time to balance out large amounts of retirements" of dispatchable generation.

The grid operators, in a joint statement, urged the EPA not to adopt the plan before thoroughly looking into its impact on the reliability of electric grids, flagging its "chilling impact" on investment to maintain existing dispatchable units.

The EPA's plan would require large existing gas-fired plants that run at least 50% of the time to install carbon capture by 2035, or co-fire with 30% hydrogen by 2032. EEI asked the agency to "repropose or significantly supplement" the proposed rules for existing gas plants.

3rd party Ad. Not an offer or recommendation by Investing.com. See disclosure here or remove ads .

One investor-owned utility, Baltimore-based Constellation, distanced itself from EEI's position and said it supported the EPA's proposed guidelines. The company said, however, that it was seeking improvements to the rule.

The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which represents 900 member-owned electric utilities, asked the EPA to withdraw the proposed rule, saying it would compromise reliability and affordability, said CEO Jim Matheson.

Labor unions, the United Mine Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electricity Workers, also called on the EPA to redo the rule and criticized its reliance on CCS, saying it puts jobs at risk.

The EPA's proposal had been crafted to reflect constraints the Supreme Court imposed on the agency last year after it ruled that the Obama era's Clean Power Plan went too far by imposing a system-wide shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy.

Latest comments

point of no return has passed.
going to the moon on the apollo missions was 'unworkable' too, until it wasn't. and that was far costlier and far more difficult..
I guess $1000 a month electric bill will be for the greater good? Democrats just want to destroy the Middle class. How about a sensible nuclear plan. Win Win but I guess Democrats don't get to pick winners and losers that way
 not all has to be replaced. my damn doesnt, nuclear power doesnt. and this is about replacing retired plants with new ones which you have to minus the cost of the carbon sourced ones they would have to replace them with anyways. SO yeah it was more expensive to go to the moon. than have a retiring coal fired plant be replaced with a hydrogen plant rather than replacing it with a coal fired plant. WE arent ordering the replacement of operational plants, just new ones, which is a huge solar system sized hole in your claim.
  well we arent replacing anything. And not all will have to change. My local dam will not be torn down. Nor nuclear plants. In fact no operational plant will be torn down. This is only for new plants. Now in your math, you have to take into account we would replace them anyways. The choice is a plant with less emissions or not. So you cant add the entire cost of the new plant to your little mental tabulation. You have to minus out the cost of replacing a coal plant with another coal plant, when working out the cost of replacing the same coal plant with hydrogen. and once again this is only for new plants, so the ones we are replacing are ones that are slated to retire.
not wanting to, is not the same as unworkable..
Yup another proposal that sounds good for votes, almost as bad as getting rid of fossil fuels and no more drilling etc etc etc
Everything Biden touches turne to crap o la
Dumb policies
hey, tornado are no longer hitting the poor neighborhood.
Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.