The EPA's Power Plant Emissions Rules Are Unworkable, Says Trade Group
The Edison Electric Institute submitted comments clarifying that although it supports the EPA's goal of decarbonization, the technologies being presented are not sufficiently proven effective.

In May, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new regulations for power plants' greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, like carbon dioxide. Under the new rules, coal- and gas-fired plants that wanted to stay open would have to lower their GHG output by 90 percent within the next decade or otherwise switch to alternative forms of energy production. The rules were part of President Joe Biden's pledge "to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035."
This week, the U.S. electric industry told the EPA that its rules are counterproductive and based on unproven technology.
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) is a trade association that "represents all U.S. investor-owned electric companies," providing "electricity for nearly 250 million Americans" across all 50 states and Washington, D.C. In a statement on Tuesday, EEI President and CEO Tom Kuhn said, "EEI and our member companies support regulations for GHG emissions" and that "we share EPA's long-term clean energy vision for our sector." He said EEI member companies had significantly lowered their carbon outputs below 2005 levels "not because they are forced to by federal regulation, but instead because they are committed to delivering resilient clean energy to their customers."
But in comments filed with the EPA regarding its new rules, the EEI expressed concerns about the ability to comply with Biden's goal. "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," it says. "This will impact electric companies' efforts to deliver affordable and reliable electricity to customers."
One of the primary methods of GHG mitigation is carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which involves removing carbon from the air and injecting it into underground wells. The EPA's rules are expected to incentivize CCS among power plants. Natural gas plants can also inject cleanly-derived hydrogen into their pipelines to produce energy with fewer emissions than gas alone. Under the EPA rules, plants must install a carbon capture system by 2035 or achieve 30 percent of their output via hydrogen blend by 2032.
But EEI contends that the "EPA has failed to show that either CCS or the hydrogen blending requirements are adequately demonstrated and can be BSER," or best system of emissions reduction. Further, "the efforts by EEI member companies as well as universities, [the U.S. Department of Energy], and international organizations and governments have not yet resulted in CCS systems that perform at the levels that EPA would require for compliance." Even the EPA's cited studies "highlight that the technology remains in the development and demonstration phase, not the commercialization and deployment phase, and that the capture levels proposed are not yet achievable."
EEI goes to great pains to underscore that it supports the EPA's decarbonization goal—it refers to CCS as "an important emerging technology"—but it hopes to do so on a more realistic timeline. The EPA claims that CCS will become cheaper and easier to install due to the rule, as "companies with the expertise to install complex emission control equipment can rapidly ramp up capacity in response to a regulatory driver." But the EEI counters that "the numerous examples of planned and delayed or abandoned [CCS] projects are proof of the opposite." The EPA is currently sitting on dozens of pending applications to build CCS wells, and that number will only increase as they become effectively mandated.
"Moreover," EEI continues, "most projects to date have received significant federal and other governmental funding, which highlights that the costs of the technology to the industry—and customers—is not yet acceptable."
EEI's comments make the case for a more market-driven approach to green technology. The EPA estimates that while U.S. GHG emissions have decreased 2 percent since 1990, emissions from electricity production have declined 15 percent over the same period "due to a shift in generation to lower- and non-emitting sources of electricity generation and an increase in end-use energy efficiency."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I wonder where anyone would have gotten the information that this is exactly what Biden was going to do before choosing who to vote for.
I mean, it was on his web site, but where was it available to investigative journolists like those here at reason. Who all voted for Biden. Who should have known this is exactly what he intended to do.
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
I have a suggestion. Why not make the Washington DC Metropolitan Statistical Area the beta test of this particular project? And no public or private building in the region can extract power from any supplemental means that doesn't fully meet the criteria being demanded of utilities. Since it's a beta test, obviously, it would have to be put into effect before 2035. Let's shoot for 2025. Surely, our noble public servants and selfless military industrial complex wouldn't be concerned that their plans might leave them in the Virginia heat in August without air conditioning.
It's a great idea, but it's no more likely than tying all congressional pensions to social security. If there's a cut in SS payments, then their pensions get the same cut. If there's a COLA for the pensions, then SS gets the same COLA.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning sixteen thousand US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
HOW DARE YOU?!
Forget DC. Apply the rule to the homes of every EPA official, regardless of location.
The rules are intentionally designed that way.
If a greenhouse reduction plan doesn't start with "nuclear", it's not a real plan.
Truer words were never said. Reason magazine used to publish really good articles on nuclear fission reactors.
That seems to assume that all of us want to try to achieve greenhouse reduction. Those of us who didn’t take the blue pill and succumb to the “anthropogenic climate change” nonsense see no particular reason to waste time and resources on greenhouse reduction. Any sensible person would, on the other hand, like to see a reduction in pollution in the form of noxious agents being released into the air and water. As a person who tries to be sensible I strongly favor ongoing innovative efforts to change technology for the better, but not at the cost of social and economic catastrophe imposed by government regulation. By all means continue to innovate small, self-contained, local nuclear power generation units and avoid strangling nuclear fuel production and nuclear waste disposal. But not in the context of “global warming!”
I will give the benefit of the doubt and suggest that you don't have to share the stated goal of reducing carbon emissions to understand that it can't be achieved without nuclear power as a central component.
If one wants to (at the very least) maintain a semblance of current energy use. There's no way on anyone's green earth wind and solar can. When will the madness end?
One additional thing is that we will eventually run out of oil, and we should prepare for it as soon as reasonably possible because when we do, it will be a major hit.
However, in this case, Carbon Capture and Hydrogen are precisely the wrong way to do everything. They don't reduce impacts. They don't reduce pollution. In fact, both methods greatly increase pollution per kWh because you waste roughly 30% of the power in compressing and transporting your CO2.
And for hydrogen, it's not even a fuel. It's a storage medium. Hydrogen gas doesn't exist naturally. If you generate it from solar or wind, this wastes at best 30% of your power, and if you reform it from hydrocarbons, you waste 60% of your energy.
It's like Hollywood wrote the standard without involving any actual engineers
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
breaking: Robbie Robertson dead at 80. Expect Nick Gillespie article within the next 72 hours.
Why not import Red China's clean air and generation regulations? The Peeps Republicans over there spend hardly any energy at all enslaving pregnant women in a war on race suicide, so they have lots of oil, coal, nuclear and waterpower with which to export bird choppers and toy battery cars to mystical suckers and anarco-socialist plank drafters.
Affordable-They don’t want it to be affordable-that’s the point!!!!!!!!!!
Can't they just strap one of those paper blue masks over the exhaust? I thought those were magic. Seems good enough to me. The navel gazing study I just did in 10 seconds says the science on masks is that they work to reduce carbon emissions.
Whenever I read articles about idiocracy like this it always seems to remind me of the conversation in “Atlas Shrugged” between Reardon and some random government official who tried to justify imposing impossible regulations on Reardon’s steel production by assuming that industrial innovation will find a way a solve the problems created by government authority. Just a reminder: innovation can turn something that can’t be done yet into something that can be done; innovation cannot turn the impossible into the possible. Of course it’s often difficult to tell which things which seem impossible now might actually not be impossible after all, so we should honor and support the innovators. But carrying that to the next step by trying to FORCE geniuses to solve the impossible frequently leads to social and economic disaster, and government officials are usually the least likely people to be able to recognize the difference. Waving your hands dismissively and saying, “Oh, you’ll come up with something,” doesn’t change the hard facts of the universe.
I've mixed it up with more than one "progressive" believer who was absolutely certain that competition would prevent companies from passing along the increased costs of universally imposed policies like higher minimum wage and corporate income taxes. Never could get them to comprehend that in order for "competition" to do that, it'd be because someone selling to the consumer market was able to avoid the costs associated with such policies, and that the most direct way to do that would be to "offshore" their operations and jobs to some other place where those rules weren't applicable or enforced.
It's like trying to get a unionist true-believer to process the fact that the high unionism rate of the 1950s USA was only really possible because the rest of what is now the "industrialized world" had no alternative to buying a lot of our products while they either established or rebuilt their own infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities which had been bombed to oblivion in WW2 or hadn't existed previously, and that also under the Marshall Plan the US Government was actually subsidizing a lot of that purchasing, especially in Europe. US companies could afford to pay "good union wages" because they had no meaningful competition to undercut their pricing, and they were decades from discovering how burdensome their pension obligations would someday become. As more and more of the rest of the world got "up and running", the US manufacturing sector continually declined under pressure from foreign competition with lower labor costs.
It's all about monopolizing the entire energy industry under [Na]tional So[zi]alist control. The Nazi's have taken over the press, taken over education, taken over the banks, taken over retirement, taken over healthcare, taken over housing, taken over agriculture/food.....
So of course Energy is the next one to be conquered by the Nazi-Empire.
The USA? My *ss. Where is all this control granted in the definition of the USA? This nation has been conquered by Nazi's right under everyone's noses.
Shut every power plant in the US down for a week. Let wind and solar do the job the whole week. Then people will understand what they need.
If only there was something that we could put in the ground that would take in carbon dioxide and expel oxygen.
I think there used to be, but we cut them all down to build wind farms and solar farms.
Trees cause climate change. They all have to go.
EEI's comments make the case for a more market-driven approach to green technology.
HAHAHAHAHA. Can always count on Reason to ignore Adam Smith in favor of cronyism instead. Koch sucking tools.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices
Ya know like what the gun packing 'government' has been doing with 'green technology' for half a century? If those 'same trade' people hadn't been meeting together and conspiring against the public and pointing guns at everyone I'm not sure the 'green technology' fad-gang of warriors against plant substance CO2 would even exist period as no-one is benefiting from it except as an excuse for them to use 'guns' against the people and steal more.
We've only got about 440 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere now, at 150 ppm all photosynthesis stops. We're 290 ppm away from the annihilation of all plant and animal life on the planet.
Why the hell are we trying to reduce this further? We should be trying to ADD to it. To get to, and maintain, about 1000 ppm.
Free the poles of ice and soak the deserts. That's what we SHOULD be aiming for.
Every method for isolating H2 that I've ever heard of is energy-intensive and the ways to get it in larger quantities usually involve processing it out of something like coal or oil.
What is "cleanly derived Hydrogen", and where does the EPA think that power plants are going to get large quantities of it from? Is the plan to redirect a huge portion of current solar/wind output into electrolysis plants to split it out of seawater just so it can then be burned along with natgas to run other generators?
Welcome to Dem rule, where it doesn't matter if a policy works or can be accomplished, because the voters supporting the ruling party will think it's happened once it's decreed and their donors/cronies will be happy to pocket $Trillions on government contracts and guaranteed loans pretending to be doing it while the papers, cable news, and social media platforms will be vigilantly suppressing any actual transparency as "malinformation".