If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chooses to replace the Clean Power Plan, it should account for the power industry's ongoing transition towards low- and zero-emitting generation, the industry group representing U.S. investor-owned electric companies told the agency.
The EPA has proposed to revoke the Clean Power Plan carbon reduction rule, citing concerns about the EPA's statutory authority. The agency has not said it will replace the Clean Power Plan, but statements by Administrator Scott Pruitt suggest that he will issue some sort of new rule to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel power plants. To that end, the EPA asked for comments by Feb. 26 on an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking seeking information about a possible Clean Power Plan replacement.
The Edison Electric Institute, or EEI, kicked off its comments by noting that its members invested more than $122 billion in 2017 "to make the energy grid smarter, cleaner, more dynamic, more flexible, and more secure." That transition allowed electric companies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions nearly 25% below 2005 levels at the end of 2016, the trade group reported.
"Revised guidelines also should take into account the ongoing transition of the fleet and recognize how that transition impacts the operation of all [power plants]," EEI said.
As part of this overall transition, EEI said fossil fuel power plants are now being used more often to provide "ramping capacity" for short periods instead of steady baseload service for long periods. That practice has led to the lowering of utility emissions, as has the increased use of renewable generation and distributed resources. EEI therefore insisted that the EPA must consider those operational changes when developing the best system for cutting carbon emissions to be included in any new rule.
Moreover, EEI asked the EPA to recognize the leading role of states in designing compliance plans and allow flexibility in emissions reduction measures, a theme that was echoed by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, or NRECA. That group stressed that the EPA must respect states' rights to develop their own carbon emissions reduction plans while providing guidance when necessary.
The EPA asked if a new rule should include emissions trading, which the original rule encouraged as the most efficient and cost-effective compliance path. But the original rule required states to choose a rate- or mass-based goal, and states could not link with a state that had a different goal.
EEI suggested the EPA could develop a mechanism that allows state trading programs using either goal to interact. The group also advocated for the banking and borrowing of emissions reduction and the averaging of emissions over a longer period of time, which would promote the least cost compliance options.
"Such flexibility is particularly appropriate when addressing a long-lived pollutant that becomes well-mixed in the atmosphere — like carbon dioxide and other [greenhouse gases]," EEI said about averaging emissions.
NRECA similarly recommended emissions averaging, but suggested that units with a common parent or dispatch representative be allowed to average, "rather than having to comply with standards on a unit-by-unit basis."
Any replacement rule should also include a "dynamic reliability safety valve," which NRECA said the original rule lacked.
The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, or ACCCE, said the EPA should simply get rid of the Clean Power Plan and take steps to preserve the existing coal fleet, but if the agency does issue a replacement rule it should stick to actions that can be taken at the plant site, referred to as "inside the fence line." The group said such measures should only include those that have been adequately demonstrated, such as boosting efficiency through heat rate improvements, and not the use of unproven carbon capture and sequestration technology.
ACCCE also advocated for changes to the EPA's new source review program to accommodate efficiency improvement projects. The program, which sets the threshold at which power plant upgrades trigger more stringent emissions requirements, is a "major deterrent to improving the efficiency of the coal fleet," the group asserted.
Many of the projects EPA listed in its request for information have previously triggered a new source review process and enforcement action by the agency, ACCCE said. But it added that any reform to the program should be done through a separate rulemaking or legislation given the complexity of the issue.
