Power shift: states will have to work together to reach the new lower C[O.sub.2] emission standards for power plants in EPA's Clean Power Plan.

• Author: Andersen, Glen
• Position: ENERGY - Environmental Protection Agency

Today's electric grid is undergoing a major transformation, driven by the availability of new technologies, low-priced natural gas and government regulations. A landmark EPA rule known as the Clean Power Plan is likely to accelerate these changes and could have the greatest impact on the electricity sector of any government regulation to date. Meeting the rule's requirements, if it survives legal challenges, is not going to be easy for many states.

The Clean Power Plan is part of President Obama's attempt to put the United States in a leading role in the global effort to address climate change. Its release in August 2015 preceded the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Paris, which resulted in the first global agreement signed by 196 countries to work to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The Clean Power Plan's goal is to reduce U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 32 percent by 2030. Every state has its own reduction target, and most will have to take legislative action to meet their goal while maintaining an affordable, reliable and resilient power supply.

Discord and Debate

Since the rule was proposed in June 2014, state lawmakers have debated how, and sometimes if, their states will comply with it. Critics argue that in order to meet the new requirements, utilities will be forced to retire coal plants for low-priced and lower-emitting natural gas and alternative energy sources. And that threatens jobs, electric rates, energy reliability and U.S. competitiveness in global marketplaces. They fear the new rule has the potential to devastate communities that rely on severance tax revenue from energy companies extracting, or "severing," coal from the ground.

Opponents also claim the administration has sidestepped the legislative process by imposing these reductions. States are able to harness new technologies to clean up America's energy better "than any federal regulation ever will," Minnesota Representative Pat Garofalo (R) stated after the rule was announced.

EPA officials respond that previous court actions require them to act on greenhouse gas emissions as part of EPA's duties under the Clean Air Act. They acknowledge that the Clean Power Plan may have a negligible effect on global temperatures if other countries do nothing. But another aim of the rule, they say, is to show that the U.S. is committed to doing its part and to serve as a model to other nations. Indeed, the Clean Power Plan served as evidence of the U.S. commitment during the international climate negotiations last December.

The EPA's cost-benefit analysis found the rule would cause a 4 percent increase in electricity costs, a far smaller amount than the health benefits that accrue from the plan, which will reduce particulates, mercury and smog-forming pollutants along with C[O.sub.2].

Warm and Warmer

With 2015 ranking as the warmest year on record and with the level of heat-trapping atmospheric CCT reaching 43 percent higher than pre-industrial levels, the administration asserts it is essential to act now to avoid potentially catastrophic warming.

The reduction plan also has the support of scientists--such as those at the National Academy of Sciences, the National Air and Space Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The EPA tried to address the concerns of industry and the states--expressed in the record 4.3 million public comments it received--by incorporating a raft of changes into the final version of the rule. Many states remain unconvinced, however.

Twenty-seven states and many trade associations, utilities, coal companies and mining interests have filed lawsuits against the agency. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had rejected earlier attempts to prevent the EPA from finalizing the rule, has combined the lawsuits into one and is expected to decide soon whether to grant the plaintiffs a stay while the case is...