EPA Clean Power Plan Terminated? Not so fast...

[Paratus]

Ars has an informative article on the political process required to end the clean power plan.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/trump-vs-the-climate-the-fights-only-just-starting/

• Because the plan went through the entire rule making process it can only be terminated by going through the same process again.
• At the end of the process groups harmed by the repeal can and will likely sue delaying repeal
• Even if repealed the underlying Endagerment Finding of CO2 still exists and requires some federal regulations
• Overturning the Endangerment Finding would likely require proving the science of climate change was wrong in court
• Most likely outcome, EPA still must have CO2 regulations on the books but drags its feet in implementation and the entire process takes at least the next 4 years

 

[K1052]

The CPP isn't even the end of it since other regulations were put in place like the MATS rule which has pushed old (50s and 60s) coal plants into retirement faster. It's still in litigation but unlikely to be entirely tossed out.

Basically every utility has reaffirmed it's intent to close more coal plants that are uneconomic or have regulatory issues while building more renewable and NG capacity. Investments in renewables are out pacing even NG 2:1 last time I looked. Thermal coal use in the US has nosedived from a few years ago and will continue to decline according to every independent review of the situation. 7-8GW are supposed to go out this year and 9-10GW next year with no end in sight.

 

[Paratus]

The CPP isn't even the end of it since other regulations were put in place like the MATS rule which has pushed old (50s and 60s) coal plants into retirement faster. It's still in litigation but unlikely to be entirely tossed out.

Basically every utility has reaffirmed it's intent to close more coal plants that are uneconomic or have regulatory issues while building more renewable and NG capacity. Investments in renewables are out pacing even NG 2:1 last time I looked. Thermal coal use in the US has nosedived from a few years ago and will continue to decline according to every independent review of the situation. 7-8GW are supposed to go out this year and 9-10GW next year with no end in sight.

That's true. Regardless of the EPA renewables will continue to pick up steam.

However I found the article interesting in that the clean power plan legality in part relies on the science of climate change. That's a huge impediment to actually removing all CO2 regulations.

 

[brycejones]

But Trump promised those coal miners their jobs were coming back.

 

[K1052]

That's true. Regardless of the EPA renewables will continue to pick up steam.

However I found the article interesting in that the clean power plan legality in part relies on the science of climate change. That's a huge impediment to actually removing all CO2 regulations.

Yes, the rules can't legally just be arbitrary. To rip them down the administration will have to actually prove it's case on scientific merit. Good luck to them on that.

 

[brycejones]

Yes, the rules can't legally just be arbitrary. To rip them down the administration will have to actually prove it's case on scientific merit. Good luck to them on that.

They are hiring the best and brightest faith scientists from Liberty university as we speak.

 

[hal2kilo]

They are hiring the best and brightest faith scientists from Liberty university as we speak.

Have you seen the admins hiring record? That's how they won't implement policy. Depopulation of the work force.

 

[brycejones]

Have you seen the admins hiring record? That's how they won't implement policy. Depopulation of the work force.

Agreed but in this case they would need to hire some useful stooges.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Have you seen the admins hiring record? That's how they won't implement policy. Depopulation of the work force.

Liberty University

 

[Brainonska511]

The CPP isn't even the end of it since other regulations were put in place like the MATS rule which has pushed old (50s and 60s) coal plants into retirement faster. It's still in litigation but unlikely to be entirely tossed out.

Basically every utility has reaffirmed it's intent to close more coal plants that are uneconomic or have regulatory issues while building more renewable and NG capacity. Investments in renewables are out pacing even NG 2:1 last time I looked. Thermal coal use in the US has nosedived from a few years ago and will continue to decline according to every independent review of the situation. 7-8GW are supposed to go out this year and 9-10GW next year with no end in sight.

Even if they could repeal all the regulations, plant operators are not building power plants that are only going to last 4-8 years. They're looking at the long-term forecast since plants spend 20-40+ years in operation.

 

[K1052]

Even if they could repeal all the regulations, plant operators are not building power plants that are only going to last 4-8 years. They're looking at the long-term forecast since plants spend 20-40+ years in operation.

Yes, gambling that the regulatory environment won't swing back during the lifetime of a plant isn't a strategy any utility would be comfortable with. Especially when the alternatives are cheaper anyway.

 

[Murloc]

Yes, gambling that the regulatory environment won't swing back during the lifetime of a plant isn't a strategy any utility would be comfortable with. Especially when the alternatives are cheaper anyway.

definitely, but if they can keep an old plant alive for a few more years maybe they'll do that.

 

[K1052]

definitely, but if they can keep an old plant alive for a few more years maybe they'll do that.

Cheap natural gas has made many of them money losers. When NG prices were higher it made sense to run out the leash on a lot of the older plants even though they were near/at/past end of useful life and marginal operations to begin with. There is little reason to spend hundreds of millions or billions refitting a worn out plant who's fuel is no longer comparatively cheap when customers increasingly don't want energy from that fuel source.

The utilities have already made these decisions. The administration is talking to itself on coal.

 

[Paratus]

Cheap natural gas has made many of them money losers. When NG prices were higher it made sense to run out the leash on a lot of the older plants even though they were near/at/past end of useful life and marginal operations to begin with. There is little reason to spend hundreds of millions or billions refitting a worn out plant who's fuel is no longer comparatively cheap when customers increasingly don't want energy from that fuel source.

The utilities have already made these decisions. The administration is talking to itself on coal.

Ars had another interesting article.
https://arstechnica.com/business/20...tteries-with-gas-turbine-to-cut-pollution-60/
Hybridizing natural gas peaker plants can cut CO2 emissions by 60%.

The on site battery packs cover electrical demand until the gas turbine is spun up. In normal peaker plants the turbine remains spinning in standby burning gas. Otherwise the plant would be unable to meet demand quick enough to prevent a brownout.

 

[K1052]

Ars had another interesting article.
https://arstechnica.com/business/20...tteries-with-gas-turbine-to-cut-pollution-60/
Hybridizing natural gas peaker plants can cut CO2 emissions by 60%.

The on site battery packs cover electrical demand until the gas turbine is spun up. In normal peaker plants the turbine remains spinning in standby burning gas. Otherwise the plant would be unable to meet demand quick enough to prevent a brownout.

Yea, I saw that one. It's amazing the innovations that can be made when there is a reason to change. We aren't ready to dump NG too but we can sure use it a lot more efficiently and allow renewable share of the mix to rise at the same time.