Why the Power Plant Rule Needs a Second Wind

The EPA’s proposed Power Plant Rule aims to drastically cut carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants, which produce a significant share of the nation’s greenhouse gases. While the rule’s ambitious targets for emissions reduction have sparked controversy, it underscores the need for innovation in carbon capture technologies and renewable energy to effectively combat climate change.

I recently challenged ChatGPT to a game of 20 questions, somewhat frivolously testing the limits of this AI. While its inability to guess “shoe” was entertaining, with each question I was asking, I was expending enough electricity to power one lightbulb for 20 minutes. Electricity is tricky– one can seek to ‘reduce their carbon footprint’ by biking or using public transportation, though heating homes, water, appliance usage and computers are often non-disputable. Passive and unintentional use also leads to this high energy consumption, as seen in my thoughtless ChatGPT experiment. Unfortunately, promoting decreased electricity use has been largely ineffective in reducing carbon emissions, 40% of which are created by the electricity sector, prompting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take action by proposing the Power Plant Rule. The pushback has been widespread and reasonable, though a complete abandonment of this rule foreshadows a bleak environmental future and worse domestic and foreign cooperation. Despite its imperfections, the Power Plant Rule must be modified and fought for.

On April 2nd, 2024, the EPA announced the final Power Plant Rule under the Clean Air Act with a central goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. Although coal-fired plants only produce 16% of our electricity, they contribute to 50% of greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector. Under this rule, coal-fired power plants are given the option to retire by 2032 and face no restrictions, reduce emissions by 16% and retire by 2039, or adopt carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology by 2032, resulting in a 90% reduction in emissions. Coal and steam hybrid plants are also subjected to this rule, although, notably, gas plants are exempt. As is likely clear, these are not standard updates to an existing system. These aggressive reduction requirements and impending deadlines suggest the EPA is looking to reshape electricity production completely by forcibly ushering in CCS and emission-friendly methods like renewable energy and phasing out coal completely.  

This policy would either lead to the closing of most coal-fired plants or the widespread adoption of CCS, a technology with mixed reviews of success. Both possibilities have been understandably criticized. Amidst growing energy demands, if most coal plants disappear by 2039, there would be a predicted deficit of 250 gigawatts, which is over half of the electricity used in 2023. This supply-demand gap would likely be filled by new gas plants, creating more infrastructure costs for the government due to gas plant subsidies. Although the EPA may intend for renewable energy and nuclear reactors to fill the gap in energy demands, both plants produce less than their projected capacities, and renewable energy projects proposals are often rejected. The second route, requiring the adoption of CCS technology, is criticized for the technology’s incompleteness and cost. As of March 2024, only 94 power plants in the USA use CCS, and it is disputed whether emissions are actually reduced by 90%, with some claiming the reduction to be as low as 10-20%. The timing of an attempt to restructure electricity production is also unfortunate – electricity demand accompanies economic growth and intelligence, especially with new AI. For the United States and global competition, the stakes of harnessing AI are significantly higher than playing a guessing game with ChatGPT. 

So far, inconsistencies with CCS and the inability for renewable and nuclear plants to fill the gap pose the greatest hindrances to implementing this rule. The Power Plant Rule is the ideal motivation to nudge innovation in these fields. Research in CCS might receive more resources and attention if perfecting it prevents spending billions on constructing new gas plants. Section 45Q of the US tax code also subsidizes CCS use, further encouraging its refinement. Renewable energy already experienced a ‘boom’ in 2020, both domestically and internationally. If this trend continues for another decade, it could be enough to fill a deficit left by disappearing coal plants. Furthermore, the opposition is quick to dispute the logistics of implementation, though there is little denying what good can come from nearly eliminating coal emissions. Due to improvements in the surrounding air and water quality, $370 billion is expected to be saved from climate and public health benefits, and climate change could at least be stalled. While it is practical to focus on implementation, the significant positive outcomes deserve more attention. In this way, there would be a greater consensus of the final goal, and both sides could work backwards to configure a better plan of action.

Before proposing some modifications for the Power Plant Rule, it is important to contextualize this rule’s outcome on the global stage. In the recent CO28 UN Conference at Dubai, there were calls for a “global stockade,” demanding participants in the Paris Agreement to come forward with plans to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by early 2025. This stockade also pushed for a tripling of renewable energy sources and a transition away from fossil fuels. For many Americans, there is a sentiment of bitterness: we are willing to propose ambitious emission reduction plans, though some countries, namely China, are the largest contributors to fossil fuel emissions with little restrictions in sight. While China’s dominance in world carbon emissions remains firm, their domestic emissions have recently plateaued for the first time since 2006. Chinese prevalence of coal plants is decreasing similarly to the USA in the last 30 years, and less emissions are generated per capita than in the USA. Submitting a version of the Power Plant Rule as our compliance with the Paris Agreement could spur other countries to follow suit, or, at the very least, grant the USA influence as one of the leaders at the forefront of fighting climate change. 

Although noble, the Power Plant Rule’s emission restrictions and timelines are too ambitious and controversial. Congressional opposition is already underway; on September 18th, 2024, the House Energy and Commerce Committee resolved to block the Power Plant Rule. To truly dismantle the policy, the Senate would have to pass a similar motion, and the blockage would be vetoed by President Biden with near certainty. With the upcoming 2024 Election, it will be interesting to see if this motion is expedited or delayed once Donald Trump or Kamala Harris respectively is elected. Nevertheless, the grievances stated in the House are reasonable: the cost of gas plants will delay their now necessary construction, CCS is unreliable, and newer energy sources are not generally trusted and depended upon by many businesses. The Power Plant Rule cannot bring about positive change if it continually faces this level of opposition; therefore some changes need to be made. The 2032 (to reduce by 16%) and 2039 (to adopt CCS) deadlines should be moved, each by at least five years. With this time, CCS research will be able to receive more investment and improvement. Government funding from tax dollars is not ideal, though it is an investment to avoid subsidizing thousands of gas power plants and spending billions on healthcare from worsening environmental conditions. Once CCS is closer to consistently reducing emissions by 90%, the marketing and release of this news to the public must be accessible, convincing, and informative. Businesses and families need to understand how their energy source is changing and why they can put their trust and funds into it. Until these are realized, there should be greater transparency on electricity usage. Labeling the electricity consumption of products and promoting general knowledge of acceptable energy use could decrease the need for such aggressive emission cuts in the first place.

As of October 16th, 2024, the Supreme Court allowed the Biden Administration to officially implement the Power Plant Rule. This is a significant step forward from the pause issued in June, though its heavy criticism has not died down. The aforementioned modifications could be what the Power Plant Rule needs for acceptance and effective implementation of this challenging and somewhat costly endeavor. The improvements to the environment, subsequent effect on upstream health, future savings, and role in global climate change efforts make it a policy worth reforming and fighting for.