The IRA contains incentives which make deployment at the required scale possible, but not certain. This places more importance on deployment of new clean energy resources to replace the lost capacity. Despite uncertainty on scale and timelines, the new rules will drive fossil fuel generation into retirement. Exactly how much generating capacity elects these retirement pathways is a major uncertainty comments over the next 60 days will provide insight into this question.ĮPA rulemaking should be assessed in the context of the broader U.S. Nonetheless, it sets up a significant transition period (a resource adequacy cliff, one could call it) in the 2030s as coal-fired resources that have elected this path enter retirement. This appears to recognize the considerable near-term role these fossil fuel resources play in ensuring sufficient generation capacity. Small gas-fired combustion turbines, also primarily used as a balancing resource, are similarly omitted from the new standards. Coal plants that commit closure by 2034 and operate on a 20 percent capacity factor, essentially operating as a balancing resource, likewise face no new operating standards. Coal plants that commit to closure by 2032 have no new operating standards. While new resources will have considerable standards applied to them, existing resources are granted significant exemptions. The major question is how this progress is achieved: Will emissions reductions occur through the deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) and other technology, or by driving fossil-fired generators into retirement?Īspects of the proposed rule appear to be concessions toward resource adequacy concerns. The EPA’s primary objective is a reduction in GHG emissions from the power sector. Opponents will focus on implementation costs, economic impact, and excessive expansion of EPA oversight.Īssociate Fellow, Energy Security and Climate Change Program Over the next 60 days of comments, proponents of the rule will focus on climate objectives and emissions reductions. Nonetheless, significant legal scrutiny of the proposed rule is expected, and legal battles are likely. The proposed rule has therefore been formulated in the context of this decision. This was a blow to the Biden Administration mandate to the EPA to advance new rigorous emissions and pollution standards. EPA decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the EPA and limited its rule making authority. The EPA’s proposed rule also comes amid a contested legal environment. These technologies have been boosted by Biden administration legislation accomplishments such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and Infrastructure and Investment and Jobs Act. The sector is undergoing a massive transition towards clean-energy, predicated mostly on wind, solar, and battery storage technology. The power sector is a major source of emissions, with fossil fuel-fired power plants responsible for roughly 25 percent of total U.S. This comes as part of the Biden administration’s broad push on climate and enviromental objectives. On May 11, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed new rules regulating carbon emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants under the authority of the Clean Air Act.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |