Join the Conversation
To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs
Commentary: Fixing the Clean Power Plan is a sensible first step
Washington loves controversy. And critics are undoubtedly clucking about the Trump administration’s plan to replace the Clean Power Plan (CPP) with a modified effort. But the administration deserves credit for updating the plan, rather than scrapping it entirely.
The CPP envisioned by President Obama represented a massive overreach of EPA authority under the Clean Air Act. Instead of addressing individual power plants, the Obama administration mandated wholesale changes to America’s power grid. The Supreme Court found this problematic, though, and issued a stay of the rule while a lower court was reviewing it.
It wasn’t just the EPA’s intrusion into the way individual states generate electricity, however. There was also the high price tag. A study by Energy Ventures Analysis (EVA) found the CPP would have forced the closure of enough generating capacity to power 24 million homes. This would have meant an estimated $214 billion in additional electricity costs between 2022 and 2030, plus $64 billion for replacement infrastructure. Such a massive expense prompted 27 states to challenge the rule.
What the Trump administration is now attempting with its “Affordable Clean Energy” (ACE) rule is to focus on improvements for existing plants. This is a more lawful approach, and it means the EPA will respect both the boundaries established under the Clean Air Act and the ability of individual states to securely generate electricity.
Essentially, the administration wants to upgrade existing facilities, rather than scrap them. There’s precedent for this, since investments in environmental controls for America’s coal fleet have already reduced emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter by 92 percent per kilowatt-hour (kWh) since 1970. Utilities have invested more than $127 billion in emissions technologies through 2018, and are also expected to spend an additional $5 billion through 2020.
The CPP aimed to rapidly eliminate coal-fired power in the U.S. But shutting down key parts of the nation’s power grid could have reduced the reliability of America’s electricity mix. An EVA study found that replacing just three of the coal plants facing premature retirement could cost consumers 15 times more than keeping them operating.
Coal currently generates 32 percent of the nation’s electricity. It’s part of a balanced energy mix. The CPP overreached, in that it would have imposed massive costs on U.S. consumers. But a fully implemented CPP would have yielded only a theoretical 0.018 degrees Celsius reduction in global temperatures by 2100, and reduced power plants CO2 emissions by less than 1 percent.
The Trump administration has waded into a complex and controversial issue. But they’ve taken a prudent approach to help states generate electricity reliably and affordably. More can be done to scale up up wind and solar power, for example. But that should be encouraged alongside advances in coal technologies that can further improve safety while also providing reliable electricity every day.
Terry M. Jarrett is an energy attorney and consultant who has served on both the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners and the Missouri Public Service Commission.