EPA’s power plant carbon rule relies on unproven tech, threatens grid reliability: House Republicans
Utility Dive, an Industry Dive publication · Utility Dive · Industry Dive

Dive Brief:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to cut carbon emissions from power plants depends on the use of unproven technologies, undermines states’ authority to determine their own energy resources and threatens to destabilize the electric grid, Republican lawmakers and several witnesses said Tuesday at a House Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing, & Critical Materials hearing.

  • EPA in May proposed greenhouse gas emissions limits for coal-, gas- and oil-fired power plants, with initial requirements beginning in 2030 for coal-fired generators and in 2032 for gas-fired units.

  • The commercial viability of compliance technologies such as carbon capture and sequestration, known as CCS, or hydrogen co-firing “is optimistic at best,” subcommittee Chairman Rep. Bill Johnson, R-Ohio, said at the hearing. EPA officials countered that the proposed rule allows generators sufficient lead time and flexibility to comply with emissions limits.

Dive Insight:

House Republicans heard from multiple witnesses on Tuesday who criticized EPA’s proposal for what Johnson called a lack of “technical and practical and feasibility.”

The proposal “requires stringent and unproven carbon dioxide emissions controls for coal-fired electric generating units to be implemented in unrealistic time frames,” David Glatt, director of the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, told lawmakers. And the plan would “usurp the authority and discretion” of the state agencies responsible for implementing environmental and energy policies, he said.

Coal-fired power plants provided 55% of North Dakota’s electricity generation in 2022, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. EPA’s proposal would require coal-fired plants operating past 2039 to install CCS that captures 90% of carbon emissions.

EPA’s proposed use of low-greenhouse gas hydrogen to meet plant emission limits “has not been adequately demonstrated, nor does it represent a reasonable extrapolation of what would be needed and available when necessary for compliance,” said Michelle Walker Owenby, director of the Division of Air Pollution Control at Tennessee’s Department of Environment and Conservation.

The power sector’s future hydrogen needs could be “over three times as much” as federal estimates, Owenby said. And EPA’s proposed use of CCS “will require unprecedented expansion of the pipeline system over the next 20 years” and ignores the fact that “landowner rights, impacts on disadvantaged communities and eminent domain are already controversial issues with respect to pipelines.”