US EPA sets renewable fuel standard for 2019

U.S. environmental regulators have established renewable fuel standards for 2019, calling for a 3% increase in renewable fuel volumes over 2018, but have continued to waive statutory requirements targeting even larger volumes of renewable fuel.

Congress created the Renewable Fuel Standard or RFS program through the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and expanded the program through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the RFS requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to be used in transportation (motor vehicles and jets) and heating. Refiners and importers of gasoline or diesel, along with other market participants like fuel producers and exporters, track and trade renewable fuel credits called Renewable Identification Numbers or RINs.

The RFS includes four categories of renewable fuel: cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. By statute, Congress prescribed specific volumes of these four categories of renewable fuel for each year through 2022, and required the EPA to set RFS volume requirements annually based on these statutory targets. The statute also allows the EPA Administrator to waive these volumetric requirements, based on a determination that implementation of the program is causing severe economic or environmental harm, or based on inadequate domestic supply.

On November 30, 2018, the EPA issued its final rule for the 2019 RFS program. The 2019 final rule sets the total U.S. renewable fuel volume requirements for 2019 at 19.92 billion gallons, including 4.92 billion gallons of advanced biofuel, 2.1 billion gallons of biomass-based diesel, and just 418 million gallons of cellulosic biofuel. The rule also sets a 2020 volume requirement for biomass-based diesel of 2.43 billion gallons.

The EPA noted that "the market has fallen well short of the statutory volumes for cellulosic biofuel, resulting in shortfalls in the advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel volumes." Based on this observation, EPA exercised its waiver authority to finalize the cellulosic biofuel volume requirement at the level EPA projects to be available for 2019. This is consistent with EPA's past practice, through which it has set the cellulosic biofuel requirement lower than the statutory volume for each year since 2010.

US EPA proposes Affordable Clean Energy rule

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a new rule addressing greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal-fired electric utility generating units and power plants. EPA's proposed "Affordable Clean Energy Rule" is designed to replace the Clean Power Plan regulations adopted in 2015.

On August 21, 2018, EPA announced the Affordable Clean Energy or ACE Rule. As described by the agency, the rule encompasses four main actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

• Defining the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER) for existing power plants as on-site, heat-rate efficiency improvements;
• Providing states a list of “candidate technologies” that can be used to establish standards of performance and be incorporated into their state plans;
• Updating the New Source Review (NSR) permitting program to further encourage efficiency improvements at existing power plants; and
• Aligning regulations under Clean Air Act section 111(d) to give states adequate time and flexibility to develop their state plans. 

According to EPA's regulatory impact analysis, replacing the Clean Power Plan with the ACE Rule would reduce CO2 emissions from their current level, and "could provide $400 million in annual net benefits," largely in the form of reduced compliance burden on covered power plants. While EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan in 2015, in 2016 the Supreme Court granted opponents stay of the regulations, and they never took full effect.

EPA will take comment on the ACE Rule proposal for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register and will hold a public hearing.

Trump executive order on domestic energy policy

U.S. President Donald Trump has signed an executive order affecting domestic energy policy.  His March 28, 2017 Presidential Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth includes a variety of directives, generally aimed at reducing federal regulations affecting domestic energy production.  Here's a look at his Executive Order targeting Obama-administration climate regulations and other agency actions that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources.

The Executive Order includes 8 operative sections.  One provides policy statements; six call for regulatory reviews that could lead to rule changes or revocations, or directly revoke and rescind Obama-era actions.  The final section includes general provisions.

Section 1 includes five policy statements, such as that "is in the national interest to promote clean and safe development of our Nation's vast energy resources, while at the same time avoiding regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth, and prevent job creation."  It also sets a federal policy "that executive departments and agencies (agencies) immediately review existing regulations that potentially burden the development or use of domestically produced energy resources and appropriately suspend, revise, or rescind those that unduly burden the development of domestic energy resources beyond the degree necessary to protect the public interest or otherwise comply with the law."

Section 2 calls for an immediate review of all agency actions that potentially burden the safe, efficient development of domestic energy resources, "with particular attention to oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear energy resources."  It directs agency heads to submit a memorandum to the Office of Management and Budget detailing such potentially burdensome actions, and including "specific recommendations that, to the extent permitted by law, could alleviate or eliminate aspects of agency actions that burden domestic energy production."  With respect to actions targeted with specific recommendations in a final report, agency heads are directed to "as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding, those actions, as appropriate and consistent with law."

Section 3 rescinds or revokes a variety of Presidential actions and reports, including several of President Obama's executive orders regarding climate change, the President's 2013 Climate Action Plan, and the Council on Environmental Quality's 2016 final guidance for federal agencies on consideration of greenhouse gas and climate issues in performing reviews of agency actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.

Section 4 calls for the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to "immediately take all steps necessary to review" the Clean Power Plan governing electricity-sector emissions and related rules "for consistency with the policy set forth in section 1 of this order and, if appropriate, shall, as soon as practicable, suspend, revise, or rescind the guidance, or publish for notice and comment proposed rules suspending, revising, or rescinding those rules."

Section 5 disbands a working group on the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions, and restricts the ways agencies may account for the monetary value of changes in greenhouse gas emissions resulting from regulations.

Section 6 calls for the Secretary of Interior to lift moratoria on federal land coal leasing activities imposed under a 2015 order, and to commence federal coal leasing activities.

Section 7 calls for review of federal regulations affecting emissions from the oil and gas sector, including 2016 emissions standards for new, reconstructed and modified sources, and a 2015 rule governing hydraulic fracturing on federal and Indian lands, among others.

Section 8 includes general provisions, generally similar to those found in other executive orders.

EPA FAQ on dam removal projects

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released a document answering "Frequently Asked Questions" about the removal of obsolete dams. 

As noted by EPA, dams "provide important societal functions for drinking water supply, flood control, hydropower generation, and recreation."  EPA estimates that the U.S. is home to between 2,000,000 and 2,500,000 dams -- but that between 75% and 90% of these dams "no longer serve a functional purpose."  Given the expense of maintaining dams and their safety, and some negative social and environmental impacts of dams, there is some pressure to remove obsolete dams.  According to EPA, over 1,300 dams have been removed in the U.S. since the early 1900s, with over 60 removals in 2015 alone.

EPA framed its dam removal FAQ in this context, noting that its answers to these questions would support dam removal efforts.  The FAQ addresses 20 distinct topics, ranging from dams' impacts on water quality, permitting issues related to dam removal, and EPA-related funding that could be used to support dam removal.

For example, the FAQ discusses permitting under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including the use of individual permits or general permits, including Nationwide Permits.  The FAQ encourages project proponents to work closely with the Army Corps of Engineers regarding Section 404 permitting.  It describes how EPA would evaluate specific requirements for monitoring or testing, such as in the case of contaminated sediments behind the dam.  The FAQ also discusses other permitting requirements, such as state-issued water quality certifications pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, and evaluations of consistency with coastal zone management plans under the Coastal Zone Management Act.

The FAQ also notes that various grants may be available for dam removal projects.  For example, grants under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act can be issued to states, territories, and tribes for dam removals.  EPA's Five Star Wetland and Urban Water Restoration Grant Program could also provide funding for river, wetlands, riparian, forest and coastal restoration, and wildlife conservation.  Other funding, such as under the Wetland Program Development Grant program, is available to build technical and programmatic capacity of state and tribal water agencies.  Finally, the FAQ notes that dam removals could be part of a Supplemental Environmental Project proposed in settlement of an environmental enforcement action.

As noted by EPA, the FAQs released in December 2016 do not impose legally binding requirements on anyone, and EPA retains the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in these FAQs where appropriate.  Nevertheless the document provides dam owners, regulators, and communities guidance on how EPA views dam removal proposals.

US Supreme Court stays Clean Power Plan

The Supreme Court of the United States has issued an order staying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan regulations limiting carbon emissions from electric power plants.  As a result, the rule's effect is frozen until legal challenges to the rule are resolved in federal court.

The Supreme Court of the United States.

EPA's final Clean Power Plan rule establishes emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units.  Developed by EPA pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 111(d), the regulation prescribes carbon reductions for states.

While state-level emissions reductions are federally prescribed, the rule places states in the role of developing their own compliance plans for how to reach the required emissions reductions.  The rule was published in the Federal Register on October 23, 2015, as Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units, 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662.  It gave states until September 6, 2016 to file a final plan, or an initial plan with a request for an extension, for EPA review.

If implemented, the EPA says the Clean Power Plan will reduce carbon emissions from power plants by 32% below 2005 levels, or about 870 million short tons.  EPA estimates the regulation could yield public health and climate benefits worth $54 billion in 2030 alone.  As states cut back on using carbon-intensive fuels such as coal and oil, EPA projects that renewable energy will grow, with utility-scale wind and solar expected to double by 2030 under the Clean Power Plan compared to 2013 levels.

But numerous lawsuits have been filed challenging the rule, along with petitions to stay or freeze its effectiveness pending judicial review.  Last month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals denied petitions for stay from parties including states, utilities and trade groups such as the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity.

Parties then filed petitions for stay to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Under a 2012 Supreme Court precedent, Maryland v. King, a party seeking a stay must demonstrate (1) a "reasonable probability" that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari or agree to hear the case, (2) a "fair prospect" that the Court will reverse the decision below, and (3) a "likelihood that irreparable harm [will] result from the denial of a stay."  This is a relatively high burden.

Today a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to stay the Clean Power Plan rule, by order entered in the West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al. case and others consolidated into the West Virginia case.  In the Court's words:

The Environmental Protection Agency’s "Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units," 80 Fed. Reg. 64,662 (October 23, 2015), is stayed pending disposition of the applicant’s petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and disposition of the applicant’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is sought. If a writ of certiorari is sought and the Court denies the petition, this order shall terminate automatically. If the Court grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, this order shall terminate when the Court enters its judgment.

The order notes that Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, Justice Sotomayor, and Justice Kagan would deny the request to freeze the rule's effect.  This note reveals a 5-4 decision to issue the stay, with Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito in the majority as supporting the stay.

With the Clean Power Plan's effect stayed, litigation over the rule will now proceed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  The 27 states participating in challenges to the rule are likely cheering.  Those include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.  Meanwhile, the 18 states who filed in support of the EPA, along with those states who have started preparing compliance plans for the regulation, now find themselves on less certain footing.  So too do electric power generators, and others interested in energy markets.  If controversy persists, whatever decision the circuit court issues is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.

RGGI states comment on Clean Power Plan

The nine Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) have submitted joint comments to the United States Environmental Protection Agency in connection with its Clean Power Plan rule.

RGGI is a cooperative effort among the states of Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont to cap and reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electric power sector.  The program establishes a regional cap on the amount of carbon dioxide that power plants can emit through the issuance of a limited number of tradable allowances.  RGGI's first three-year compliance period began on January 1, 2009, making it the nation’s first market-based emissions trading program to reduce greenhouse gas pollution.

On August 3, 2015, the EPA announced its "Clean Power Plan," new regulations limiting power plant carbon emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  While states are free to build their own compliance plans, the rule establishes emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units.  The rule also encourages states and regions to work together in developing compliance plans.

States are now tasked with developing their compliance plans.  The Clean Power Plan gives states until September 6, 2016, to either submit a final carbon-cutting plan or to submit an initial plan along with a two-year extension request.  Many observers have noted that for states already participating in RGGI, that program may be able to serve as a mechanism for Clean Power Plan compliance.  This prospect is natural, as RGGI and the Clean Power Plan share some common goals and features.

This week, the nine RGGI states submitted joint comments to the EPA on the Federal Plan (FP) and Model Rules (MR) proposed as part of the Clean Power Plan.  In those comments, the RGGI states "welcome EPA's continued recognition that well-designed multi-state, market-based programs like RGGI can deliver cost-effective emissions reductions."

In an accompanying press release, the RGGI states note their own "track record of success."  As cited in the joint comments, the "RGGI states have seen benefits to the economy and public health, as well as consumer savings, experiencing 8 percent GDP growth across the region while reducing power sector carbon pollution by more than 40 percent since 2005," while maintaining electric reliability.

Based on this experience, the RGGI states encouraged EPA to select mass-based approaches as the most cost-effective, transparent, and reliable way to achieve emission reductions.  (Mass-based approaches set limits on the total mass of carbon allowed to be emitted -- like 100 million tons.  By contrast, rate-based approaches might limit the rate of carbon emissions per unit of useful electric energy.)

Recognizing that trading platforms can play an important role in markets, increasing participation, access, and liquidity, the RGGI states urged EPA to "adopt a trading platform that is flexible and customizable to encourage broader trading markets."

The RGGI states also asked EPA to encourage auctioning of carbon allowances, and reinvestment of the auction proceeds.  In so doing, the RGGI states pointed to their own reinvestment of RGGI auction proceeds in efficiency and consumer relief.

Finally, the RGGI states encouraged EPA to prevent "leakage" of carbon emissions from existing sources to new sources, by including new sources in a mass-based program or some other equally effective alternative method of allocation.

With states now working to develop Clean Power Plan compliance strategies, how will the RGGI experience shape state plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan?

NERC suggests Clean Power Plan reliability considerations

The electric reliability organization for North America has issued an assessment of reliability considerations it thinks state electricity and environmental regulators should take into account in crafting state plans to comply with the Clean Power Plan.

The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) is a not‐for‐profit regulatory authority whose mission is to assure the reliability of North America's bulk power system.

Last year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued its Clean Power Plan, a final rule limiting carbon dioxide emissions for existing electric generation facilities.  States are expected to prepare individual or collaborative plans to comply with the regulation.  Because reducing the carbon intensity of electric power generation is the goal, EPA expects that some plans will include a shift from coal-fired power plants to less carbon-intensive sources.  As NERC wrote in its assessment:

The BPS is already undergoing a broad transformation with retirements of coal units and some nuclear units, and additions of resources fueled by natural gas, wind, and solar. Distributed generation, energy efficiency, and demand response are also changing the way in which system planners must account for resources. The CPP has the potential to hasten the transformation of the electric system started by market and political factors such as natural gas supply and pricing and federal and state policy decisions with respect to renewables and energy efficiency and other environmental regulations.

But reliability is a key issue at stake in any shift in the portfolio of generating resources.  The Clean Power Plan rule explicitly requires that states consider reliability as part of their plans.

NERC's assessment, Reliability Considerations for Clean Power Plan Development, presents its view of "aspects of plan design that need to be considered to reliably accommodate this broad transformation."  NERC's ten key reliability considerations are:

• State coordination with system planning entities - planners and coordinators working together
• Essential reliability services - "In order to maintain an adequate level of reliability through this transition, generation resources need to provide sufficient voltage control, frequency support, and ramping capability — essential components to the reliable operation of the BPS. It is necessary for policy makers to recognize the need for these services by ensuring that interconnection requirements, market mechanisms, or other reliability requirements provide sufficient means of adapting the system to accommodate large amounts of variable and/or distributed energy resources (DERs)."
• Timing considerations for energy infrastructure development - "Retirements can happen quickly, but adequate replacement facilities must be in service prior to retirement. As natural gas‐fired generation replaces coal‐fired generation the requisite timeline for natural gas pipeline infrastructure becomes even more relevant."
• Electricity imports and exports - "If a state intends to use resources from nearby states as part of a compliance strategy, it is important to determine if the necessary transmission capability is available to reliably transport electricity from those resources."
• Change in generator cycling and operations - coal plants may serve more seasonal peak demands, so "states should take account of changes in maintenance requirements likely due to cycling and the risk of increased forced outages of these coal‐fired plants. Additionally, increased and sufficient coordination between gas and electric system operators becomes much more critical to ensure adequate amounts of fuel are available."
• Reserve margin assessment - "As more variable and energy ‐ limited resources are added, the system will likely require additional reserve capacity to maintain a similar level of reliability compared to a system with all conventional generation."
• Energy efficiency - "Given that EE can be used as a potential CPP compliance tool, it is important that states evaluate the realistic potential for EE to displace load and the likely duration of those impacts. Shorter term EE measures may serve as a potential bridge to meet CPP requirements."
• Emissions trading - "In general, emissions trading promotes additional reliability compliance options by effectively broadening the compliance region as well as the availability of allowances and credits. However, some resource options that might be assumed available through emissions trading may not be, due to another state’s plan. Because trading is optional, states should coordinate to ensure the most beneficial approach of trading is considered."
• Reliability safety valve - "States must understand how the Reliability Safety Valve works and its limits, recognizing that it cannot be used as a planning tool to meet CPP requirements."
• North American and European precedents - states should review carbon market precedents like RGGI and shifts in Canada and Europe toward renewable and distributed resources as case studies for potential strategies, lessons learned in implementation, and insights as they develop their plans.

Some states are already developing Clean Power Plan compliance plans.  Meanwhile, judicial challenges have been filed.  Initial plans are due to the EPA later this year.

FERC staff guidance for Clean Power Plan modeling

Staff of the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission have issued a white paper presenting guidance principles for modeling state plans to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan carbon regulations from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.

The EPA issued the Clean Power Plan on August 3, 2015 as a regulation under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  The Clean Power Plan limits carbon dioxide emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric power plants.  The final rule provides state specific goals for carbon dioxide emissions from affected electric generating units, including interim emissions goals from 2022 to 2029 and a final goal for 2030.

Due to congressional concern that environmental regulations not jeopardize the reliability of the electric grid, each covered state must demonstrate that it has considered reliability issues in developing its plan.  That consideration of reliability is certain to include modeling.  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has entered into an agreement with EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy to coordinate certain activities to help ensure continued reliable electricity generation and transmission during the Clean Power Plan's implementation.

In furtherance of that mission, on January 19, 2016, staff of the Commission released an 18-page white paper identifying four guiding principles that may assist transmission planning entities in conducting effective analysis of the Clean Power Plan and associated state, regional, or federal compliance plans.

These guiding principles address four areas:

• Transparency and stakeholder engagement: "transparency and stakeholder engagement in model development, model inputs and study designs can help identify policy alternatives and effectively evaluate assumptions, while also improving coordination across transmission planning regions."
• Study methodology and interactions between studies: "incorporating changes to current study methodologies can allow transmission planning entities to more effectively assess the impact of the CPP and associated compliance plans."
• Study inputs, sensitivities and probabilistic analysis: "using study inputs that account for uncertainty and test for sensitivity can help effectively assess the impact of the CPP and associated compliance plans."
• Tools and techniques: "adopting new modeling tools and techniques may help transmission planning entities better assess the overall impact of the CPP and associated compliance plans."

The FERC staff white paper notes that while "effectively evaluating the impacts of the CPP may present challenges, these challenges can be mitigated by using appropriate modeling tools and techniques."  Under the Clean Power Plan, states have until September 6, 2016, to submit either a final carbon-cutting plan or to request a two-year extension and to submit an initial plan for EPA review.

Previewing climate and energy in 2016 State of the Union

President Obama is scheduled to deliver his final State of the Union address tonight. As in previous years, he is likely to address climate change, energy and environmental issues.  What will the 2016 State of the Union have to say about these topics?

We know from previous years' State of the Union speeches (2013, 2014, 2015) that energy, the environment, and climate change have played an increasing role in the Obama administration's priorities. While the administration released a "preview" video on Youtube for the 2016 address,  the brief clip doesn't include any substantive remarks about climate, energy, or the environment.

However, the Obama administration has been active on climate, energy and environmental issues, with key developments in the past year such as the adoption of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan regulations limiting power plant emissions of carbon dioxide and the denial of the Keystone XL pipeline's Presidential Permit application.  Indeed, President Obama has said that "no challenge poses a greater threat to our children, our planet, and future generations than climate change — and that no other country on Earth is better equipped to lead the world towards a solution."

Climate change, energy, and the environment are likely to be mentioned along with other administration priorities such as international relations, national security, gun violence, and the economy.  Indeed, the White House's State of the Union website features sections titled Economic Progress, Acting on Climate, Engagement in the World, Health Care Reform, and Social Progress and Equality.

Under the "Acting on Climate" heading, the administration website for this year's address notes the December 2015 Paris agreement on climate change, reduced domestic emissions, the largest investment in renewable energy in U.S. history, and associated job creation.  The website also provides a "Record on Climate Change", listing details of the administration's actions to address climate change.

President Obama's final State of the Union address to Congress will be streamed live at https://www.whitehouse.gov/sotu on January 12, 2016 at 9PM ET.

EPA proposes methane rules for oil and gas

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed a suite of new and modified rules affecting the oil and natural gas industry.  Collectively, the proposed rules released on August 18 are designed to reduce methane emissions from oil and natural-gas drilling activities.

As the world tackles climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, methane plays a dual role.  As the key constituent of natural gas, methane offers society an abundant and efficient fuel that can displace reliance on costlier and more carbon-polluting fuels like coal and oil.  At the same time, methane in the atmosphere can act as a greenhouse gas itself, with a global warming potential more than 25 times greater than that of carbon dioxide.  According to EPA, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted in the United States from human activities, and nearly 30 percent of those emissions come from oil production and the production, transmission and distribution of natural gas.  At the same time, U.S. production of oil and natural gas has increased, giving the sector important economic and domestic security impacts.

To address this dynamic, yesterday EPA proposed a series of rules affecting the oil and natural gas sector.  EPA has described the new rules as a "key component" of the Obama administration's Climate Action Plan.  They follow a January announcement of a new goal to cut methane emissions from the oil and gas sector by 40 to 45 percent of 2012 levels by 2025.  Under the administration's view, a key tool supporting that goal is the implementation of standards for methane and volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from new and modified oil and gas production sources, and natural gas processing and transmission sources.

The rules EPA proposed yesterday include such standards, along with supporting materials.  EPA has described its collective proposal as "a suite of commonsense requirements that together will help combat climate change, reduce air pollution that harms public health, and provide greater certainty about Clean Air Act permitting requirements for the oil and natural gas industry."

EPA's proposed package of rules includes:

• Updates to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (PDF, 591 pages) setting methane and VOC requirements for additional new and modified sources in the oil and gas industry. 
• Draft Control Techniques Guidelines (PDF, 310 pages) for reducing VOC emissions from existing oil and gas sources in certain ozone nonattainment areas and states in the Ozone Transport Region.
• A Source Determination Rule (PDF, 54 pages) to clarify EPA’s air permitting rules as they apply to the oil and natural gas industry.

According to EPA, the proposed rule will reduce methane emissions by between 340,000 and 400,000 short tons in 2025,  on top of reductions of 170,000 to 180,000 tons of other VOCs and 1,900 to 2,500 tons of hazardous air pollutants.  But industry trade group American Petroleum Institute has called additional regulation "unnecessary for reducing emissions."  Debate over EPA's proposal is likely to be vigorous, before EPA as it considers its proposed rulemaking, as well as before Congress and possibly even federal courts, before the dust settles.

EPA will take public comment on the proposals for 60 days after they are published in the Federal Register.  According to the January announcement, the administration expects the final rule will follow in 2016.  This action on oil and natural gas production follows closely on the heels of EPA's adoption of the Clean Power Plan rules, regulating carbon emissions associated with the electric power industry.

Resources on Clean Power Plan

Yesterday President Obama announced his administration's "Clean Power Plan," the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's new regulations limiting power plant carbon emissions under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.

EPA's final Clean Power Plan rule establishes emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas  emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units. 

Here are some quick resources I've compiled as a guide to the Clean Power Plan and its release:

• Clean Power Plan Final Rule (PDF) (1560 pages)
• EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis of the final rule 
• EPA's press release,  "Obama Administration Takes Historic Action on Climate Change/Clean Power Plan to protect public health, spur clean energy investments and strengthen U.S. leadership."
• EPA's overall Clean Power Plan website
• EPA's "key topics" handout
• EPA, DOE, FERC memorandum on coordination in implementing the Clean Power Plan
• EPA fact sheets:
• Overview of the Clean Power Plan: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants 
• Clean Power Plan: Key Changes and Improvements
• By the Numbers: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants
• Benefits of a Cleaner, More Efficient Power Sector
• Components of the Clean Power Plan: Setting State Goals to Cut Carbon Pollution
• The Role of States: States Decide How to Meet Their Goal
• Built on a Solid Legal and Scientific Foundation
• Clean Energy Now and in the Future
• Clean Energy Incentive Program
• Keeping Energy Affordable and Reliable
• Resources about the 2014 draft Clean Power Plan:
• A look at EPA's cost/benefit analysis
• Early questions about the Clean Power Plan
• FERC plans conferences about the Clean Power Plan
  

US Clean Power Plan adopted

President Obama will formally unveil the Clean Power Plan today, a set of regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce carbon emissions associated with the electric power industry.  A blog post by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy emphasizes the Clean Power Plan's protection of health and the environment, states' rights to choose their own implementation paths, reduction of future energy costs, and leadership on climate issues.  But some politicians, utilities and states have expressed concern about the regulations' impact, and could launch legal challenges -- or states might refuse to comply.  What's in store for the Clean Power Plan?

It has been just over a year since EPA first released its draft Clean Power Plan in June 2014.  These regulations under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act are designed to reduce the carbon intensity of the U.S. electric power sector -- essentially, how many pounds of carbon are emitted per megawatt-hour of electric energy produced.  Under the draft Clean Power Plan, EPA sets carbon intensity limits for each state, collectively designed to reduce carbon emissions by 30% below 2005 levels.  Each state then designs its own compliance plan using any combination of "building blocks": types of measures like improving the efficiency of fossil fuel power plants, switching out coal- and oil-fired power plants in favor of natural gas, and increasing low- and zero-carbon generation.

While the final Clean Power Plan's basic structure remains much the same, EPA has made some modifications in reaction to concerns about the greenhouse gas regulations' costs and impacts to grid reliability.

Changes from the 2014 draft include:

• Two extra years (until 2022) for states to meet their targets, and greater flexibility for states to form regional pacts to facilitate emissions-cutting projects across state lines, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
• A new “safety valve” feature, to let states appeal for extensions and other relief if complying with the regulations causes disruptions to power supply.
• Increased social justice incentives for utilities to construct renewable energy projects in poorer neighborhoods, reducing pollution-related illness and eventually lowering electricity rates.
• Energy efficiency is still encouraged, but has been eliminated as one of the rule’s "building blocks” for states to use in building their own carbon-reduction plans.

How will the Clean Power Plan story continue to play out?  Will it be challenged in court?  Will states comply?  What impacts will it have on the U.S. electric power industry?

Supreme Court rules on EPA power plant regulations

The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency acted unreasonably in developing new regulations on hazardous air emissions from power plants without considering the cost impact of those regulations.  This ruling reinjects uncertainty into EPA's "Mercury and Air Toxics Standards" and other efforts to regulate power plant emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The federal Clean Air Act was designed to improve environmental quality and human health, among other goals.  It broadly allows federal regulation of air emissions of pollutants of various types and from various sources.

Because certain specific provisions in the Clean Air Act applied specifically to power plants, Congress placed a special restriction on EPA's regulation of power plant emissions under Section 7412(n)(1)(A) of the Clean Air Act.  That provision allows EPA to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power plants under Section 7412 only if it “finds such regulation is appropriate and necessary.”  In 2000, after a study, EPA concluded that regulating power plants under Section 7412 was "appropriate and necessary."  EPA reaffirmed this finding in 2012, and promulgated standards for emissions from power plants.

Along with those standards, EPA issued a “Regulatory Impact Analysis” estimating that the regulation would force power plants to bear costs of $9.6 billion per year.  That analysis also found that while benefits were hard to fully quantify, estimated benefits were worth $4 to $6 million per year.  Based on this analysis, compliance costs to power plants were thus between 1,600 and 2,400 times as great as the quantifiable benefits from reduced emissions of hazardous air pollutants.  At the same time, EPA argued that it did not have to consider costs in establishing its standards.

Following the issuance of these standards, 23 states sought review of EPA’s rule in the D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals in a series of cases which were later consolidated.  The D.C. Circuit upheld EPA's refusal to consider costs in its decision to regulate, at which point petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court. As my partner Jeff Talbert explains, in a 5-4 decision issued June 29, the Supreme Court held that EPA interpreted §7412(n)(1)(A) unreasonably when it deemed cost irrelevant to the decision to regulate power plants.

So what does the Supreme Court's ruling mean for U.S. power plants?  Uncertainty -- but not necessarily freedom from regulation.  The Supreme Court remanded the case back to the D.C. Circuit for further consideration.  The D.C. Circuit could uphold the rule again (on new grounds, compliant with the Supreme Court's decision) -- or it could invalidate the rule based on the Supreme Court ruling.  If that happens, EPA will likely have to resume the process of developing new regulations for hazardous air emissions from power plants under Section 7412.

Coal power plants retiring in 2015

The U.S. portfolio of electric power plants will continue to shift in 2015, according to a federal assessment projecting that nearly 16 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity will retire in 2015.  Most of the capacity to be retired this year is coal-fired generation.  This continues a multi-year trend away from coal, and toward natural gas and renewable resources.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, nearly 16 GW of generating capacity is expected to retire in 2015.  Of this, 81% (12.9 GW) is coal-fired generation.  Generator retirements are heavily composed of coal-fired generation, split between bituminous coal (10.2 GW) and subbituminous coal (2.8 GW).  Most of this retiring coal capacity is found in the Appalachian region, with slightly more than 8 GW combined in Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Virginia, and Indiana.

New environmental regulations and struggles to remain cost-competitive explain most of these retirements.  This year, the Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) take effect.  MATS requires existing large coal- and oil-fired electric generators to meet stricter emissions standards by retrofitting the units with new emissions control technologies.  While some units have been granted extensions to operate through April 2016, some power plant operators are choosing to retire units instead of making cost-prohibitive investments in pollution control.

Most of the coal-fired units slated for retirement are smaller and operate at a lower capacity factor than average coal-fired units in the United States.  According to EIA, the to-be-retired units have an average summer nameplate capacity of 158 MW, just 60% as big as the 261 MW average for other coal-fired units.  In 2014, the average capacity factor for all coal units was 61%, but the subset of coal units retiring in 2015 had an average capacity factor of just 36%.  The relatively small size and low capacity factor of these power plants make it harder for them to compete economically against other generation sources.  This competition is especially difficult if sufficient natural gas-fired generating capacity is available, as the cost of natural gas has fallen to levels not seen since 2012.

The coal capacity retiring in 2015 accounted for 1.6% of total U.S. generation during 2014.  At the same time, electric generating companies expect to add more than 20 GW of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid.  This new capacity is dominated by wind (9.8 GW), natural gas (6.3 GW), and solar (2.2 GW), which together compose 91% of expected new capacity in 2015.

Obama links climate and health

President Obama has issued a Presidential Proclamation declaring this week, April 6-12, 2015, as National Public Health Week.  Climate change, and its impacts on human and environmental health, figure prominently in his proclamation.

The Obama administration has focused on climate change since taking office in 2009.  In 2013, President Obama released his administration's Climate Action Plan, calling for reductions in U.S. emissions of carbon and greenhouse gases, adoption of mitigation and adaptation measures, and global action.  He has also addressed climate change in his State of the Union speeches to Congress, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has issued its proposed Clean Power Plan to reduce the carbon intensity of the nation's electric power sector.

While interest in addressing climate change arises from a broad range of factors, health plays an important role in the Obama administration's action on climate issues.  In this week's Presidential Proclamation on health, President Obama noted the interdependence of climate, environment, and human health:

America's public health is deeply tied to the health of our environment. As our planet becomes more interconnected and our climate continues to warm, we face new threats to our safety and well-being. In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting these individuals and many other vulnerable populations at greater risk of landing in the hospital. Rising temperatures can lead to more smog, longer allergy seasons, and an increased incidence of extreme-weather-related injuries and illnesses.

My Administration is dedicated to combating the health impacts of climate change. As part of my Climate Action Plan, we have proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for existing power plants -- standards that would help Americans live longer, healthier lives. And as we continue to ensure the resilience of our health care system, we are working to prepare our health care facilities to handle the effects of a changing planet. Climate change is no longer a distant threat. Its effects are felt today, and its costs can be measured in human lives. Every person, every community, and every nation has a duty to protect the health of all our children and grandchildren, and my Administration is committed to leading this effort.

This week the Obama administration announced further actions to protect communities against the impacts of climate change.  These actions include convening stakeholders to prepare for a White House Climate Change and Health Summit later this spring that will feature the Surgeon General, and an Adaptation in Action Report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The Obama administration also announced an expansion of its Climate Data Initiative to include more than 150 health-relevant datasets on climate.data.gov.  President Obama unveiled the Climate Data Initiative in 2014 to host data related to climate change that can help inform and prepare businesses and citizens for the impacts of extreme weather.  The newly released datasets are designed to help the public answer questions, including:

• In what ways does the changing climate affect public health where I live?
• What risk factors make individuals or communities more vulnerable to climate-related health effects?
• How can public health agencies, communities, and individuals plan for uncertain future conditions?

FERC 2014 State of the Markets report

U.S. energy markets overseen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 2014 were impacted by extreme weather and changes in the mix of electric generation resources, according to a report by Commission staff.

The 2014 State of the Markets report issued on March 19 by FERC's Office of Enforcement’s Division of Energy Market Oversight presents Commission's staff’s assessment of recent developments in natural gas, electric, and other energy markets.

Extreme cold temperatures in the first quarter of 2014 affected natural gas infrastructure and power markets across the country.  The price of natural gas in the U.S. reached record high levels, driving corresponding spikes in the price of electricity.  For example, the price of natural gas at the Transco Zone 6 Non-NY pricing point hit $123/MMBtu in January -- about 33 times higher than the average 2013 U.S. price.  Largely due to these price spikes, the spot natural gas price at the Henry Hub pricing point averaged $4.32/MMBtu in 2014, a 16% increase over 2013.

Meanwhile, natural gas and renewable resources continued to displace coal as a fuel for electric power generation.  Total U.S. generating capacity increased 10.8 GW in 2014, with natural gas and renewable projects representing the bulk of new capacity.  At the same time, utilities retired coal-fired power plants, continuing a trend that started in 2012.  Commission staff projects continued coal retirements in 2015, particularly after the April effective date of additional air emissions regulations imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards.

FERC's 2014 State of the Markets report also provides a quick look at 2015 year-to-date market performance.  Wholesale electricity prices rose again this winter, although not as sharply as in the first quarter of 2014.  FERC staff's report suggests factors helping to moderate winter prices included better cold-weather preparation of assets, programs like ISO New England's Winter Reliability Program, better coordination between operators of electric transmission and natural gas pipelines, record high levels of natural gas production, the development of new pipeline infrastructure, and low oil prices.

FERC and EPA's Clean Power Plan

Following the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's 2014 proposal to regulate carbon emissions from electric power plants and other major sources, federal energy regulators have scheduled a series of public technical conferences on how the Clean Power Plan may affect electric reliability, wholesale electric markets and operations, and energy infrastructure.

On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced the Clean Power Plan, its proposed rule under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon emissions from the nation's power plants.  Designed to reduce carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, EPA's proposal would impose limits on each state's rate of carbon emissions per megawatt-hour of electric energy generated.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the transmission and wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce, monitors energy markets, and protects the reliability of the high voltage interstate transmission system.  Acting out of concern over the possible impacts of the EPA Clean Power Plan on its regulated sector, on December 9, 2014, the Commission scheduled a series of technical conferences to develop public comment on these issues.

First, the Commission will hold a National Overview technical conference on February 19, 2015, at its Washington, DC headquarters.  Earlier this month, the Commission issued a supplemental notice describing the agenda for the National Overview.  After an introduction by EPA, the Commission expects to discuss:

• Electric reliability considerations: How will the Clean Power Plan affect electric reliability?  How can the U.S. sustain reliability as states and regions develop their plans to comply with the proposed carbon rule?  How could state, regional, and federal plans for compliance affect grid operations?  What tools are available to identify potential reliability impacts?  How can reliability planning processes and compliance planning efforts  coordinated to address potential issues?  What is the Commission's role in this area?
• Identifying and addressing infrastructure needs: What potential infrastructure needs may arise from various state or regional compliance approaches?  How can any infrastructure needs met in a timely manner in order to ensure system reliability?  How can relevant planning entities, industry, and states coordinate reliability and infrastructure planning and siting processes with state and/or regional environmental compliance efforts to ensure the adequate and timely development of new infrastructure?  Are additional mechanisms needed to ensure timely development of new infrastructure? Are adaptations to current Commission policies needed to facilitate the infrastructure needed for compliance with the proposed Clean Power Plan?
• Potential implications for Commission-jurisdictional markets:  How could potential compliance approaches to the proposed Clean Power Plan impact Commission-jurisdictional electric and natural gas markets?  What aspects, if any, of the wholesale and interstate markets would facilitate implementation of state or regional compliance plans?  What tools are available to address market issues as they arise?  What opportunities are available to coordinate compliance approaches with Commission-jurisdictional markets to meet the requirements of the proposed Clean Power Plan rule?

Following the National Overview, the Commission has scheduled three regional conferences in February and March 2015.

FERC plans conferences on EPA carbon rule impacts

If the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed carbon regulations for power plants are adopted, how will state and regional efforts to comply with the rule impact the electric power grid?  If states need new infrastructure like electric transmission lines or natural gas pipelines to comply with the EPA rule, what can be done to reduce regulatory barriers to new infrastructure development?

A fossil fuel-fired power plant near New York, NY.

The EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan rule would require states to meet customized standards for how much carbon dioxide their electric power sector emits per unit of useful energy.  As envisioned by EPA, each state can choose its own path to meeting these standards by combining elements from a menu of four "building blocks": better coal plant efficiency, increased utilization of natural gas plants, increased renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency.

The implications of different approaches to complying with the proposed rule will be the focus of an upcoming series of technical conferences to be held by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.  According to the Commission's public notice, state, regional and/or federal plans for compliance with the proposed Clean Power Plan may impact Commission-jurisdictional markets, grid operations, and infrastructure.  The series of technical conferences is designed to provide forums for identifying issues and solutions.  The Commission also plans to provide an opportunity to discuss how compliance scenarios may impact existing infrastructure and drive the need for additional infrastructure, especially new electric transmission and natural gas pipeline facilities, and whether there are regulatory barriers that need to be addressed, and by whom, to ensure the timely development of those facilities.

The conferences will begin with a Commission-led National Overview session at FERC headquarters on February 19, 2015.  The National Overview will address whether regulators and industry have the appropriate tools to identify any reliability or market issues that may arise, potential strategies for compliance with the EPA regulations and coordination with FERC-jurisdictional wholesale and interstate markets, and how to coordinate reliability and infrastructure planning processes with state and/or regional environmental compliance efforts to ensure the adequate development of new infrastructure and to manage any potential reliability and operational impacts of proposed compliance plans. The Commission will offer a live webcast of the National Overview, which will be archived for three months.

Following the National Overview technical conference, the Commission will hold three regional technical conferences, on dates to be announced, in Washington, DC, St. Louis, MO, and Denver, CO.  Each regional event will include discussion of the specific potential impacts to regional reliability, power system operations and generator dispatch, and needed infrastructure upgrades.

Will the EPA's Clean Power Plan be finalized and take effect?  If so, when -- and in what form?  Federal carbon emission limits are as yet untested in the U.S., and other innovative regulatory efforts have met with years or even decades of delay before taking effect.  At the same time, the prospect of federal carbon rules affecting the electric power sector spurs energy regulators to take a serious look at potential impacts of the carbon rules, and to begin planning for their possible future effectiveness.

Questions about EPA regulation of power plant carbon emissions

This week the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued a public notice relating to its Clean Power Plan, the agency's proposed rule to reduce carbon emissions from the nation's existing power plants.  The notice reiterates questions raised by commenters about issues including the redispatch from coal- to natural gas-fired generation and near-term carbon reductions through 2029.

The Clean Power Plan imposes a federal carbon emissions rate (stated in pounds of carbon emitted per megawatt-hour of electric energy generated) for each state.  The rule is designed to offer states flexibility in developing plans to achieve that level of carbon intensity, and features four proposed "building block" elements that states may choose to include in their program design: increased coal plant efficiency, increased utilization of natural gas plants, increased renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency.  Collectively, EPA projects that by 2030 the Clean Power Plan's implementation will reduce power plant carbon emissions 30 percent below 2005 levels.

Since EPA published its proposal on June 18, 2014, the agency has held at least eight days of public hearings in four cities, attended by over 2,700 people, of whom nearly half spoke or otherwise weighed in.  The draft Clean Power Plan was originally scheduled for public comment through October 16, but EPA extended the comment period by 45 days (until December 1, 2014) in response to both the volume of comments and numerous requests for additional time. 

On October 28, EPA issued a notice of data availability related to the proposed Clean Power Plan.  EPA routinely issues such a notice, or NODA, to provide the public with a targeted opportunity to consider and comment on emerging technical issues and data related to an ongoing rulemaking.  EPA's Notice of Data Availability Related to the Proposed Clean Power Plan (PDF) provides additional information on several topics raised by stakeholders and solicits comment on the information presented.  The three topics covered in the notice are the emission reduction compliance trajectories created by the interim goal for 2020 to 2029, certain aspects of the building block methodology, and the way state-specific carbon dioxide goals are calculated.

EPA's interim goals govern emission reductions over the 2020-2029 period, as states transition to energy resources with lower carbon intensity.  Some stakeholders have expressed concern that, as proposed, the interim goals do not provide enough flexibility for some states which may be forced to rely heavily on re-dispatch from fossil steam generation (e.g., coal- , oil-, or gas-fired boilers) to natural gas combined cycle units to achieve the required reductions, and that this effect of the interim goals severely limits the opportunity to fully take advantage of the remaining asset value of existing coal-fired generation -- particularly challenging with the threat of a "polar vortex" or other disruptive weather event.  EPA requests comment on these interim goals and whether they afford suitable flexibility.

Stakeholders have also raised questions about the building blocks available to states as they design compliance programs.  In particular, building block 2 focuses on shifting utilization from coal- and other fossil-fired steam power plants to more carbon-efficient natural gas combined cycle plants.    Building block 3 focuses on renewable energy and nuclear power.  In response, EPA requests comment on ways that building block 2 could be expanded to include new natural gas combined cycle units and natural gas co-firing in existing coal-fired boilers and ways that state-level renewable energy targets could be set based on regional potential for renewable energy.

Stakeholders have also noted concerns with the way the state-specific carbon dioxide goals are calculated.  These include concerns that the numeric formula for calculating each state's goal is not consistent in its application of the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for each building block, and concerns with the use of data for the single year 2012.

EPA's Clean Power Plan is now open for public comment through December 1, 2014.

FERC testifies on EPA carbon regulations and electric reliability

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's proposed Clean Power Plan rule is projected to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, improve human health and save money -- but will it jeopardize the reliability of the nation's electricity grid?

Poorly implemented carbon regulations could increase the risk of widespread power outages, but this risk can be managed, according to testimony offered by the Commissioners of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Power earlier this week.

In her written testimony, Acting Chairman Cheryl LaFleur acknowledged concerns that EPA's carbon rule may have an "adverse impact on the overall reliability of the bulk power system."  Noting that EPA's plan leaves much of the implementation to individual states, she suggested that the FERC work closely with states to consider how state implementation plans will affect the operation of the grid. 

Commissioner Philip Moeller's testimony was more critical of EPA's proposed rule, which he described as infringing upon the FERC's jurisdiction over electric system reliability.  Noting that electricity markets are interstate in nature, Commissioner Moeller warned that "the proposal’s state-by-state approach results in an enforcement regime that would be awkward at best, and potentially very inefficient and expensive."  He also expressed skepticism at the plan's inclusion of increased use of existing natural gas-fired generation as one "building block" states may use to reduce their power sector's carbon intensity.  Commissioner Moeller also pointed to EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule as giving him reliability concerns.  On the positive side, he urged state regulators to speed adoption of real-time pricing at the retail level, so consumers can feel price signals that could reduce the overall cost of energy.  Commissioner Moeller concluded with a plea that FERC be given a formal role in EPA's regulation of the electric power sector.

Commissioner John Norris testified that EPA's proposed rule is "an important first step that addresses climate change by appropriately seeking to reduce carbon emitted by our nation’s electric power system."  While he acknowledges that transitioning to a low-carbon economy is challenging, he expressed confidence that "we as a nation should be well positioned to meet those challenges."  Commissioner Norris cited the MATS standards as an example of our readiness: while EPA's MATS rule led to the retirement of many older, inefficient coal-fired power plants, the grid has generally responded in a way that will maintain reliability.  Commissioner Norris urged cooperation with electric reliability organization North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) and states, and to be flexible in making market rule changes to enable states, regional transmission organizations and other system planners to meet resource adequacy requirements.

Commissioner Tony Clark testified that while the grid is more reliable than before, it remains vulnerable to cyberattack, physical security threats, and geomagnetic disturbances.  He also described environmental regulations as another source of risk, and warned of the "seismic" shift in EPA authority over the energy sector embodied in the rule.  Commissioner Clark described the Clean Power Plan as the most comprehensive reordering he has seen of the jurisdictional relationship between the federal government and states as it relates to the regulation of public utilities and energy development.  He painted a picture of states forced to choose between surrendering their authority over power plants willingly or losing it to federal supremacy.

Current FERC enforcement director Norman Bay also testified, noting that he was confirmed by the Senate as a Commissioner on July 15, but that he has not yet been sworn in.  His brief testimony focused on the need for cooperation between FERC, EPA, NERC, states, and regional transmission organizations to ensure reliability.

What happens next remains to be seen.  As expressed in the opening statements of Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, many remain concerned about what they perceive as an effort by EPA to assert control and new regulatory authorities over states’ electricity decision-making.  Will EPA's Clean Power Plan ultimately come into effect -- and if so, what path will it take?