🔋Generational Shifts
🔋Generational Shifts
The nuance behind the supreme court EPA ruling and why it makes sense.
Help me out and press the heart button above or below I would greatly appreciate it!
EPA Ruling
Last week the US Supreme Court came out with a controversial ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions of coal power plants. The EPA was trying to use the clean air act to regulate how coal power plants are to reduce emissions. The EPA is a federal organization whos leaders are appointed by the president and approved by congress which means they are an even further derivative from being elected by the people. Their job is to maintain and regulate many environmental laws. Some took this as a major loss for reducing carbon dioxide emissions and fight against climate change.
Others view it as as natural checks and balances within the government and a needed reduction of the federal government’s power.
Some argue that this is just the supreme court curtailing away the EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions which means it is an awful decision. It will certainly delay or stop the reduction of some emissions, but it is more nuanced than it seems. It comes down to coal and gas power plants specifically, and exactly how they should be reducing emissions. This decision does not actually destroy the EPA/Clean Air Act’s ability to regulate emissions as given by Massachusetts v. EPA which gave it the ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. What it does is not allow the EPA the ability to create new legislation that determines in what way the emissions are to be reduced. Let me explain… following quotes from West Virginia v. the EPA,
In 2015, however, EPA issued a new rule concluding that the “best system of emission reduction” for existing coal-fired power plants included a requirement that such facilities reduce their own production of electricity, or subsidize increased generation by natural gas, wind, or solar sources. The question before us is whether this broader conception of EPA’s authority is within the power granted to it by the Clean Air Act.
The EPA was trying to determine exactly how coal plants were to control their emissions even though it (was determined not to be) an explicit task assigned to them by congress. They took it upon themselves to determine the “best system of emission reduction.” This essentially means they were trying to guide coal plants to reducing coal generation or to use their capital to subsidize natural gas, wind, or solar energy projects. As further discussed,
EPA could choose whether to require anything from a little generation shifting to a great deal.
Indeed, the emissions limit the Clean Power Plan established for existing power plants was actually stricter than the cap imposed by the simultaneously published standards for new plants. The point, after all, was to compel the transfer of power generating capacity from existing sources to wind and solar.
The EPA tried to use the Clean Air Act to compel coal companies to “shift generation” to other sources of energy and it was arbitrary how aggressive they could be in their regulation. Under calculations for the Clean Power Plan, shifts such as these would imply heavy costs paid for with higher energy prices and have a deleterious effect on GDP.
EPA’s own modeling concluded that the rule would entail billions of dollars in compliance costs (to be paid in the form of higher energy prices), require the retirement of dozens of coal-fired plants, and eliminate tens of thousands of jobs across various sectors. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule 3–22, 3–30, 3–33, 6– 24, 6–25 (2015). The Energy Information Administration reached similar conclusions, projecting that the rule would cause retail electricity prices to remain persistently 10% higher in many States, and would reduce GDP by at least a trillion 2009 dollars by 2040.
The decision to block the EPA’s power here was due to lack of “clear congressional authorization” to make major shifts in power generation, which means that the EPA was essentially overreaching in its power. The court ruled that the EPA under the current rules doesn’t have this major policy decision making ability which is congresses job. Congress is actually still free to legislate exactly what the EPA wants to accomplish into being if they desire.
Thoughts
It is a good goal to reduce emissions, especially from coal plants. However, the regulation proposed was an overreach of power by the EPA under the current Clean Air Act framework approved by congress. This is a major check on federal power, especially those with unelected officials. Even under the vision of reducing emissions, the government deciding exactly which actions a coal company should take are quite remarkable. This is blatantly anti free market and was government interference in the energy market. Government agencies are naturally inclined to do as much as they can since they need continuing reasons to function and grow. The more areas they can get involved, the more power and money they will receive. It will obviously upset many folks that the emissions targets will be effected by this decision, but it is healthy to stunt the ever increasing growth of the government.
Not only this, but it also was probably not the best way forward anyway. Under the proposed methods for destroying coal plants, there was no mention of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is safe, zero emission, and the most energy dense source on the planet. A true “best system of emission reduction” for electricity power generation on the grid would definitely include nuclear power. There continues to be a political aversion to nuclear power in favor of wind and solar.
Furthermore, the projections of the proposed system imply that shutting the coal power plants down in that method would have harmful consequences for the economy and the average person. Coal is very cheap and is more energy dense than wind/solar thus it would be very costly to shut down the plant and replace it with renewables, not to mention the battery storage costs required to make it as reliable as coal generation. The calculations were done by the very organizations proposing the renewables transition. The increased costs come in the form of further energy inflation and cause business energy expenses to increase having harmful economic impacts.
It is necessary that there is replacement energy for the curtailment of the coal plants at a reasonable cost. Natural gas was even one solution proposed to be reasonable by the EPA, as it is less emitting than coal. Nuclear power is a no brainer, while renewables + batteries could get there at the right price. Without a proper replacement energy at a reasonable price, energy costs rise and there becomes a risk of energy crisis that is already in motion in many parts of the world already. Even if crisis could be avoided, people are not going to respond kindly to a lower standard of living brought about by higher energy costs, especially when alternatives are available.
-Grayson
Leave a like and let me know what you think!
If you haven’t already, follow me at twitter @graysonhoteling and check out my latest posts.
Let someone know about Better Batteries and spread the word!
Socials
Twitter - @graysonhoteling
LinkedIn - Grayson Hoteling
Email - betterbatteries.substack@gmail.com
Archive - https://betterbatteries.substack.com/archive
Subscribe to Better Batteries
Please like and comment to let me know what you think. Join me by signing up below.