The Obama administration’s climate-change rules targeting existing power plants will look vastly different from the ones Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy announced Friday.
The rules McCarthy unveiled last week, which apply only to plants not yet built, will require new coal-fired power plants to install costly technology called carbon, capture, and sequestration (known as CCS), which captures and stores carbon emissions underground instead of emitting the carbon into the atmosphere.
By contrast, the rules EPA is scheduled to unveil next summer will not require this technology, McCarthy told reporters at a breakfast briefing Monday hosted by The Christian Science Monitor.
The distinction is important but sometimes overlooked as critics of President Obama’s climate-change agenda roundly pan the entire effort as a war against coal. The rules are poised to help reduce coal’s share of the electricity pie — right now it’s about 42 percent — over the next several decades. But coal-fired power is already facing significant challenges competing with natural gas, which accounts for 50 percent fewer carbon emissions than coal and, for right now, is both cheap and plentiful.
“It is really safe to say, if you read the rule, that CCS is really effective as a tool to reduce emissions when it is designed with the facility itself,” McCarthy said in response to a question about whether EPA’s rules for existing power plants would also require CCS. “It is not seen, at least at this stage, as an add-on that could be used to put on an existing unconventional coal facility.”
CCS is considered a prohibitively costly technology that is being demonstrated in only a few places throughout the entire world and is not, for now, commercially available. McCarthy struck an optimistic tune on this issue Monday, just as she did in Friday’s announcement, which prompted several questions about the technology’s viability.
“CCS is feasible and is available,” McCarthy said Monday. “We’re not suggesting that it doesn’t add cost to coal, compared to conventional coal. But if you’re looking at coal being a viable fuel for the future over the next decades, when we believe climate change must be addressed internationally, it does create a path forward.”
EPA’s rules for the roughly 6,600 power plants operating throughout the country today, including nearly 600 coal-fired plants, will rely on a wholly different method of rule-making compared with the rules announced Friday.
“The new power plant [rule] follows what everyone thinks of the traditional approach that EPA has,” McCarthy said. “Set a standard on what science tells you to reduce and also on technology availability.”
The rule affecting existing sources, which EPA is scheduled to propose by June 2014, will not be an across-the-country technology standard.
“EPA is supposed to look at guidelines for what kind of reductions nationally are achievable, and then each state is supposed to develop its own plan, take a look at its own suite of activities, and look at what’s reasonable,” McCarthy said. As potential methods of emissions-cutting states could pursue, McCarthy cited more ambitious energy-efficiency upgrades and integrating more renewable energy into the electric grid.
“We know where the investments in clean energy are going,” McCarthy said. “Renewables are getting to a tipping point now where they make great sense.”
McCarthy also reacted to the news of a potential government shutdown, which would occur Oct. 1 unless Congress doesn’t pass a continuing resolution to keep funding the government.
“It will mean that EPA effectively shuts down with only a core group of individuals who are there in an event of a significant emergency,” McCarthy said. “If there is no budget, EPA cannot pay its employees. People will not be working; the vast majority of people will not be working. It’s safe to say I will be.”
- 1 Views of Homosexuality Differ Greatly by Region
- 2 Congress Passed a Cell-Phone Unlocking Bill. But It Won’t Do Much.
- 3 The Fight for a Smaller, Stronger Republican Study Committee
- 4 Wednesday Q+A with Ann Selzer
- 5 Smart Ideas: The Debate as a Microcosm of 2016, the Demise of North Korea, and the Libertarian Party’s Ceiling
What We're Following See More »
"Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton will score another high-powered Republican endorsement on Wednesday, according to a campaign aide: retired senator John Warner of Virginia, a popular GOP maverick with renowned military credentials."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday "heard several hours of oral arguments" over the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan rules. The 10-judge panel "focused much of their questioning on whether the EPA had overstepped its legal authority by seeking to broadly compel this shift away from coal, a move the EPA calls the Best System of Emission Reduction, or BSER. The states and companies suing the EPA argue the agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate anything outside of a power plant itself."
"Spending by super PACs tied to Donald Trump friends such as Ben Carson and banker Andy Beal will help make this week the general election's most expensive yet. Republicans and Democrats will spend almost $28 million on radio and television this week, according to advertising records, as Trump substantially increases his advertising buy for the final stretch. He's spending $6.4 million in nine states, part of what aides have said will be a $100 million television campaign through Election Day."
Monday night's debate may have inspired some in Congress, as Senate Minority Leader has decided to take a stand of his own. Reid is declining to allow a vote on a "bipartisan bill that would bolster U.S. spectrum availability and the deployment of wireless broadband." Why? Because of a "broken promise" made a year ago by Republicans, who have refused to vote on confirmation for a Democratic commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission to a second term. Harry Reid then took it a step further, invoking another confirmation vote still outstanding, that of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.