Advanced Energy Perspectives

After the comment period closed on December 1, the stats were in: EPA received more than 1.6 million comments on the Clean Power Plan from individuals, organizations, and state regulatory bodies. By one estimate it would take 71 people working eight hours a day from now until June to read them all. But don't worry—our Carbon Policy Analysts identified the top comments and plowed through them. This is the second of five blog posts presenting AEE’s summary of and take on comments from a few key stakeholders: federal and state regulatory organizations, states, ISO/RTOs, utilities, and industry and environmental groups. This post covers comments from state utility commissions (PUCs and PSCs), air regulators (DEQs and DEPs), and lawmakers.

After the comment period closed on December 1, EPA received more than 1.6 million comments on the Clean Power Plan from individuals, organizations, and state regulatory bodies. By one estimate it would take 71 people working eight hours a day from now until June to read them all. But don't worry—our Carbon Policy Analysts identified the top comments and plowed through them. This is the first of five blog posts presenting AEE’s summary of and take on comments from a few key stakeholders: federal and state regulatory organizations, states, ISO/RTOs, utilities, and industry and environmental groups. First up, State and Federal Regulator associations.

The North American Electric Reliability Corp. (NERC) released a report in early November calling for an analysis by regulators and power companies to determine whether the Clean Power Plan’s initial 2020 deadline can be met without threatening reliability. NERC’s report questioned whether there would be enough time to build natural gas pipelines and high voltage transmission lines for gas and renewables to replace coal generation. While NERC did not submit its own comments, the NERC report was cited by many organizations in their comments on the Clean Power Plan. AEE’s supplemental comments address this issue by demonstrating the ways that advanced energy technologies can enhance grid reliability while states shift generation to comply with the Proposed Rule.

The midterm election saw energy and environment issues play front-and-center in many campaigns--but now that the votes have been cast, the implications of campaign rhetoric  remain uncertain. Amid discussion of Keystone XL, LNG exports, and possible compromise on energy efficiency legislation is speculation that the GOP-controlled Senate may target the EPA’s Clean Power Plan. At the state level, several gubernatorial transitions could also have implications for the implementation of the plan.

On Nov. 5, we submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency AEE’s comments on the Clean Power Plan. As we testified in the Agency’s hearing in July, AEE supports the Clean Power Plan, because we see it as a vital step toward modernizing the U.S. electric power system for greater efficiency, reliability, and economic opportunity. Compliance with the Clean Power Plan may be complicated, but with all the technologies available and all the flexibility allowed for individual states to develop plans that make sense for them, EPA’s state targets for reduced greenhouse gas emissions will be easy to achieve. In our comments, what we told EPA is this: Advanced energy can contribute much more to emission reduction than the draft of the Clean Power Plan contemplates, and provide economic benefits at the same time.

Last month, EPA announced it would extend the public comment period for its proposed Clean Power Plan to December 1. This will give stakeholders and the states, many of which are engaged in public stakeholder processes themselves, an extra 45 days to draft their own comments. AEE is tracking the comment process in our 23 partner states, plus Texas and Florida. We have already submitted state comments with our partners in several states, and we submitted our own set of comments in Florida.

The public comment process is taking place in some states despite political opposition to the EPA plan from their respective governors. Fifteen governors have sent a letter to EPA arguing that the Agency has overstepped its legal authority. While the letter echoes ongoing lawsuits against EPA’s authority to regulate “beyond the fenceline” of power plants and against using 111(d) to regulate sources of pollution already regulated under section 112, some of the signatories - such as Arizona Governor Jan Brewer - are not yet parties to any of the lawsuits against EPA.