By Kristen Walker, American Consumer Institute
A few weeks ago Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a proposal to repeal the Clean Power Plan (CPP) 2.0 established under Biden, which aims to close coal-fired and new natural gas power plants unless they capture 90 percent of their carbon emissions. On top of technological deficiencies, the provision’s legality is questionable, and it will have dire consequences if left untouched.
Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS)—the idea that CO2 can be captured, transported, and then stored in underground wells—remains extremely complex, expensive, and largely unsuccessful despite decades of research and development. Only a handful of functioning CCS facilities operate worldwide, and they only capture approximately 0.1 percent of global emissions, a tiny fraction of what experts had projected.
The Supreme Court in 2022 struck down President Obama’s Clean Power Plan 1.0 in West Virginia v. EPA, which according to the current EPA “the major questions doctrine barred EPA from misusing the Clean Air Act to manipulate Americans’ energy choices and shift the balance of the nation’s electrical fuel mix.” Such sweeping powers to overhaul how the nation generates electricity is not granted by agencies; it must be done through Congress, which as of yet, has not been successfully accomplished.
CPP 2.0 similarly attempts to shut down affordable and reliable electricity generation in the United States to replace them with expensive and intermittent wind and solar. Just look to the UK and Germany who both pursued aggressive climate policies by replacing natural gas and nuclear with wind and solar.
Britain’s residents experience some of the highest electric bills in all of Europe and endure a stagnant economy. Germany’s skyrocketing electricity prices have forced businesses to flee, leading to deindustrialization and economic decline. Each have also had major blackouts because of unstable and inadequate renewable power systems.
Some of our own states here at home have failed to learn from Europe’s mistakes and are already on a precarious path.
California’s large renewable portfolio has strained the grid, causing rolling blackouts and petitions for residents to conserve. They also have the highest electric bills in the continental U.S. Texas’ massive expansion of wind and solar is largely responsible for power failures during winter Strom Uri and the grid’s near collapse. And New England states are seeing skyrocketing electricity prices attributable to increasing renewable development.
Increased electricity costs disproportionately hurt lower-income households and small businesses. Diminished energy supplies and inflated prices will stifle economic growth, and jobs would move overseas to locations with significantly less stringent environmental regulations.
North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) annual report regularly warns two-thirds of the U.S. is at risk of electricity shortages because the grid cannot handle an abundance of renewable sources. Dispatchable energy must be employed to keep power flowing.
During a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing two years ago, NERC’s CEO was asked whether energy sources forced to retire early under EPA’s regulations could be replaced by suitable renewables. His response? “No. Not in the timeframe we’re looking at.”
Energy demand is constantly exploding, and we can’t afford to get this wrong. With the rampant growth of Artificial Intelligence and data centers needed to supply its energy around the clock as well as the electrification of vehicles on the rise, demand on the grid will continue to surge. We must course correct before it’s too late.
The current EPA submits that fossil fuel-fired power plants are not significant emitters of greenhouse gases, arguing “GHG emissions from those sources are a small and decreasing part of global emissions.”
Regardless, the U.S. has made significant progress in air quality, pollution, and carbon levels through market-based solutions. Industry advancements like the shale revolution and liquified natural gas exports have and will continue to improve global emissions. Ongoing operational innovation will continue to improve energy efficiency, production, and transport.
We should not hamstring our capacity to produce abundant, reliable, and affordable energy by instituting unachievable mandates that force the closure of dependable sources. Nor should we place our fate in the hands of technology like CCS that currently fails to demonstrate commercial viability.
CPP 2.0 undermines grid reliability, economic growth, and national security, while putting safety and livelihoods at risk. It must be repealed.
Kristen Walker is an energy policy analyst for the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the Institute, visit www.theamericanconsumer.org or follow on Twitter @ConsumerPal.