The Environmental Protection Agency released new information Tuesday about its proposed power plant rules and laid out potential alternatives on how states might achieve their carbon-cutting goals.
The information offers a window into some of the concerns that states, industries and other groups have about the power plant rule, and which worries the EPA is examining.
EPA Air and Radiation Administrator Janet McCabe, however, downplayed the action, saying it was a “routine” step.
“I would caution anyone against reading too much into this action,” she told reporters during a media call, adding that the data does not amount to making the proposed rule “more or less stringent.”
The data and alternatives the EPA floated for comment touches on several aspects of the proposed rule, which aims to slash electricity-sector emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.
Chief among the data are state emissions levels for 2010 and 2011. Some states have contended that emissions in 2012 — the year the EPA has proposed using as a benchmark for its state-specific goals — were an anomaly because they were lower than in previous years.
Other concerns hit on methodology.
The EPA said it would take comments on two other plans for counting new renewable energy and energy efficiency. Some states have argued that the current proposal doesn’t properly account for the potentially lower emissions that might be caused by renewable energy replacing higher-emitting sources.
Another key item regards the cuts states would need to make between 2020 and 2029. Some states said they would prefer being able to count some reductions made before 2020 to the cuts the EPA is seeking afterward, rather than using them all to count toward the smaller, interim target in 2020. Others noted the proposal would prematurely shutter coal-fired units that haven’t been paid off, resulting in a costly switch to lower-emitting sources.
The EPA said it would consider alternatives to smooth the transition.
“Some stakeholders have expressed concern that the goal-setting methodology … requires states to achieve such a significant portion of the required CO2 emission reductions early in the interim period that it defeats the intended purpose of providing states flexibility in how they may achieve the required emission reductions,” the EPA document said.
“In addition, we have heard that there may be technical challenges associated with achieving all of the reductions that states would be required to make as early as 2020,” the EPA continued.
Still, the EPA said there has been disagreement over whether prodding states to use 70 percent of their natural gas-fired power is asking too much or too little. The EPA said some commenters noted states that can feasibly use more of it should and those that can’t shouldn’t. Others have said shifting power to natural gas too quickly would significantly raise electricity rates, especially in areas where coal-fired power plants still haven’t been paid off.
“We’ve gotten a range of comments about natural gas,” McCabe said.
The data also lays out a way to account for renewable energy generation on a regional, rather than state-by-state, basis. McCabe said that would better reflect the way those power sources operate, as many utilities buy renewable electricity from sources beyond state borders.
“The markets for renewable energy are not located within single states,” McCabe said. “We’re just trying to be as open as we can about the ways that people can look at setting renewable targets that’s reflective of the way that these markets actually work.”
The agency also has received many comments on nuclear power, which McCabe said the EPA is taking “seriously.” While she said the agency is still reviewing comments on how to adjust its treatment of nuclear, she added that the agency doesn’t yet plan to offer any new information.
Some electric utilities that use nuclear power have criticized the proposal for not allowing five reactors under construction to count against emissions targets in Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee. And others in states where some of the nuclear fleet generation is “at risk” say a proposal that the EPA designed as an incentive to keep that power afloat is insufficient.
“We will be thinking about that very seriously, but we think it’s well covered in the June proposal,” McCabe said.
McCabe said the agency will release more information on how to convert the proposal from a “rate-based standard” — calculated in terms of pounds of carbon dioxide produced per megawatt-hour of electricity — into a “mass-based standard,” which relies on pounds of carbon dioxide.
Complying with a mass-based standard would allow states to form carbon markets and cap-and-trade systems. McCabe said many states have asked about how best to band together to form regional schemes for complying with the proposed rule, which the EPA has said would be the cheapest way to meet its targets.
