The U.S. Energy Department finalized $1.6 billion in loan guarantees for BrightSource Energy Inc's Ivanpah solar complex in the California desert, a project that also received a $168 million investment from Google.
BrightSource said the funding announcements close financing for the Ivanpah project, which was already set to receive up to $300 million in financing from power company NRG Energy.
The $168 million from Google is the company's largest investment in the clean energy sector to date, Google said in a statement.
"We're excited about Ivanpah because our investment will help deploy a compelling solar energy technology that provides reliable clean energy, with the potential to significantly reduce costs on future projects," the company said.
The Ivanpah project will consist of three related utility-scale solar thermal power plants located on federal land in the Mojave Desert in southeastern California.
The majority of solar power projects developed to date have been photovoltaic systems, in which sunlight is turned into electricity using semiconductor materials in panels.
But Brightsource will use thermal, or concentrated solar power stations where mirrors concentrate sunlight on a fixed point to heat a liquid that produces steam to power a turbine.
When construction is completed in 2013, the 392-megawatt project will provide enough power for more than 85,000 homes, the Energy Department said.
Texas Heat Pump Electrification replaces natural gas furnaces with electric heating across ERCOT, cutting carbon emissions, lowering utility bills, shifting summer peaks to winter, and aligning higher loads with strong seasonal wind power generation.
Key Points
Statewide shift from gas furnaces to heat pumps in Texas, reducing emissions and bills while moving grid peak to winter.
✅ Up to $452 annual utility savings per household
✅ CO2 cuts up to 13.8 million metric tons in scenarios
What would happen if you converted all the single-family homes in Texas from natural gas to electric heating?
According to a paper from Pecan Street, an Austin-based energy research organization, the transition would reduce climate-warming pollution, save Texas households up to $452 annually on their utility bills, and flip the state from a summer-peaking to a winter-peaking system. And that winter peak would be “nothing the grid couldn’t evolve to handle,” according to co-author Joshua Rhodes, a view echoed by analyses outlining Texas grid reliability improvements statewide today.
The report stems from the reality that buildings must be part of any comprehensive climate action plan.
“If we do want to decarbonize, eventually we do have to move into that space. It may not be the lowest-hanging fruit, but eventually we will have to get there,” said Rhodes.
Rhodes is a founding partner of the consultancy IdeaSmiths and an analyst at Vibrant Clean Energy. Pecan Street commissioned the study, which is distilled from a larger original analysis by IdeaSmiths, at the request of the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund.
In an interview, Rhodes said, “The goal and motivation were to put bounding on some of the claims that have been made about electrification: that if we electrify a lot of different end uses or sectors of the economy...power demand of the grid would double.”
Rhodes and co-author Philip R. White used an analysis tool from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory called ResStock to determine the impact of replacing natural-gas furnaces with electric heat pumps in homes across the ERCOT service territory, which encompasses 90 percent of Texas’ electricity load.
Rhodes and White ran 80,000 simulations in order to determine how heat pumps would perform in Texas homes and how the pumps would impact the ERCOT grid.
The researchers modeled the use of “standard efficiency” (ducted, SEER 14, 8.2 HSPF air-source heat pump) and “superior efficiency” (ductless, SEER 29.3, 14 HSPF mini-split heat pump) heat pump models against two weather data sets — a typical meteorological year, and 2011, which had extreme weather in both the winter and summer and highlighted blackout risks during severe heat for many regions.
Emissions were calculated using Texas’ power sector data from 2017. For energy cost calculations, IdeaSmiths used 10.93 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity and 8.4 cents per therm for natural gas.
Nothing the grid can't handle Rhodes and White modeled six scenarios. All the scenarios resulted in annual household utility bill savings — including the two in which annual electricity demand increased — ranging from $57.82 for the standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to $451.90 for the high-efficiency heat pump and 2011 extreme weather year.
“For the average home, it was cheaper to switch. It made economic sense today to switch to a relatively high-efficiency heat pump,” said Rhodes. “Electricity bills would go up, but gas bills can go down.”
All the scenarios found carbon savings too, with CO2 reductions ranging from 2.6 million metric tons with a standard efficiency heat pump and typical meteorological year to 13.8 million metric tons with the high-efficiency heat pump in 2011-year weather.
Peak electricity demand in Texas would shift from summer to winter. Because heat pumps provide both high-efficiency space heating and cooling, in the scenario with “superior efficiency” heat pumps, the summer peak drops by nearly 24 percent to 54 gigawatts compared to ERCOT’s 71-gigawatt 2016 summer peak, even as recurring strains on the Texas power grid during extreme conditions persist.
The winter peak would increase compared to ERCOT’s 66-gigawatt 2018 winter peak, up by 22.73 percent to 81 gigawatts with standard efficiency heat pumps and up by 10.6 percent to 73 gigawatts with high-efficiency heat pumps.
“The grid could evolve to handle this. This is not a wholesale rethinking of how the grid would have to operate,” said Rhodes.
He added, “There would be some operational changes if we went to a winter-peaking grid. There would be implications for when power plants and transmission lines schedule their downtime for maintenance. But this is not beyond the realm of reality.”
And because Texas’ wind power generation is higher in winter, a winter peak would better match the expected higher load from all-electric heating to the availability of zero-carbon electricity.
A conservative estimate The study presented what are likely conservative estimates of the potential for heat pumps to reduce carbon pollution and lower peak electricity demand, especially when paired with efficiency and demand response strategies that can flatten demand.
Electric heat pumps will become cleaner as more zero-carbon wind and solar power are added to the ERCOT grid, as utilities such as Tucson Electric Power phase out coal. By the end of 2018, 30 percent of the energy used on the ERCOT grid was from carbon-free sources.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, three in five Texas households already use electricity as their primary source of heat, much of it electric-resistance heating. Rhodes and White did not model the energy use and peak demand impacts of replacing that electric-resistance heating with much more energy efficient heat pumps.
“Most of the electric-resistance heating in Texas is located in the very far south, where they don’t have much heating at all,” Rhodes said. “You would see savings in terms of the bills there because these heat pumps definitely operate more efficiently than electric-resistance heating for most of the time.”
Rhodes and White also highlighted areas for future research. For one, their study did not factor in the upfront cost to homeowners of installing heat pumps.
“More study is needed,” they write in the Pecan Street paper, “to determine the feasibility of various ‘replacement’ scenarios and how and to what degree the upgrade costs would be shared by others.”
Research from the Rocky Mountain Institute has found that electrification of both space and water heating is cheaper for homeowners over the life of the appliances in most new construction, when transitioning from propane or heating oil, when a gas furnace and air conditioner are replaced at the same time, and when rooftop solar is coupled with electrification, aligning with broader utility trends toward electrification.
More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.
“Whenever a homeowner’s making a decision, if their system goes out, they lean heavily on what the HVAC company suggests or tells them because the average homeowner doesn’t know much about their systems,” he said.
More work is also needed to assess the best way to jump-start the market for high-efficiency all-electric heating, and how utility strategies such as smart home network programs affect adoption too. Rhodes believes getting installers on board is key.
Wind Turbine Cancer Claim debunked: Iowa Republican senators back wind energy as fact-checks and DOE research find no link between turbine noise and cancer, limited effects on property values, and manageable wildlife impacts.
Key Points
Claims that turbine noise causes cancer, dismissed by studies and officials as unsupported by evidence.
✅ Grassley and Ernst call the claim idiotic and ridiculous
✅ DOE studies find no cancer link; property impacts limited
President Donald Trump may not be a fan of wind turbines, as shown by his pledge to scrap offshore wind projects earlier, suggesting that the noise they produce may cause cancer, but Iowa's Republican senators are big fans of wind energy.
Sen. Chuck Grassley called Trump's cancer claim "idiotic." On Thursday, Sen. Joni Ernst called the statement "ridiculous."
"I would say it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous," Ernst said, according to WHO-TV.
She likened the claim that wind turbine noise causes cancer to the idea that church bells do the same.
"I have church bells that ring all the time across from my office here in D.C. and I know that noise doesn't give me cancer, otherwise I'd have 'church bell cancer,'" Ernst said, adding that she is "thrilled" to have wind energy generation in Iowa, which aligns with a quarter-million wind jobs forecast nationwide. "I don't know what the president is drawing from."
Trump has a history of degrading wind energy and wind turbines that dates back long before his Tuesday claim that turbines harm property values and cause cancer, and often overlooks Texas grid constraints that can force turbines offline at times.
Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse they are bad for people's health.
"Not only are wind farms disgusting looking, but even worse, they are bad for people's health," Trump tweeted back in 2012.
Repeated fact-checks have found no scientific evidence to support the claim that wind turbines and the noise they make can cause cancer. The White House has reportedly provided no evidence to support Trump's cancer claim when asked this week
"It just seems like every time you turn around there's another thing the president is saying -- wind power causes cancer, I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley -- it's an 'idiotic' statement," Pelosi said in her weekly news conference on Thursday.
The president made his latest claim about wind turbines in a speech on Tuesday at a Republican spring dinner, as the industry continued recovering from the COVID-19 crisis that hit solar and wind energy.
"If you have a windmill anywhere near your house, congratulations, your house just went down 75 percent in value -- and they say the noise causes cancer," Trump said Tuesday, swinging his arm in a circle and making a cranking sound to imitate the noise of windmill blades. "And of course it's like a graveyard for birds. If you love birds, you never want to walk under a windmill. It’s a sad, sad sight."
Wind turbines are not, in fact, proven to have widespread negative impacts on property values, according to the Department of Energy's Office of Scientific and Technical Information in the largest study done so far in the U.S., even as some warn that a solar ITC extension could be devastating for the wind market, and there is no peer-reviewed data to back up the claim that the noise causes cancer.
I am considered a world-class expert in tourism. When you say, 'Where is the expert and where is the evidence?' I say: I am the evidence.
It's true wildlife is affected by wind turbines -- particularly birds and bats, with research showing whooping cranes avoid turbines when selecting stopover sites. One study estimated between 140,000 and 328,000 birds are killed annually by collisions with turbines across the U.S. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimated, however, that other human-related impacts also contribute to declines in population.
The wind industry works with biologists to find solutions to the impact of turbines on wildlife, and the Department of Energy awards grants each year to researchers addressing the issue, even as the sector faced pandemic investment risks in 2020. But, overall, scientists warn that climate change itself is a bigger threat to bird populations than wind turbines, according to the National Audobon Society.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi: "It just seems like every time you turn around, there's another thing. The president is saying wind power causes cancer. I associate myself with the remarks of Chairman Grassley; It's an 'idiotic' statement"
Ontario Pickering Nuclear Closure will shift supply to natural gas, raising emissions as the electricity grid manages nuclear refurbishment, IESO planning, clean power imports, and new wind, solar, and storage to support electrification.
Key Points
Ontario will close Pickering and rely on natural gas, increasing emissions while other nuclear units are refurbished.
✅ 14% of Ontario electricity supplied by Pickering now
✅ Natural gas use rises; grid emissions projected up 375%
✅ IESO warns gas phaseout by 2030 risks blackouts, costs
The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall with natural gas-generated power in a move that will, as an analysis of Ontario's grid shows, hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions substantially in the coming years.
In a report released this week, a nuclear advocacy group urged Ontario to refurbish the aging facility east of Toronto, which is set to be shuttered in phases in 2024 and 2025, prompting debate over a clean energy plan after Pickering as the closure nears. The closure of Pickering, which provides 14 per cent of the province’s annual electricity supply, comes at the same time as Ontario’s other two nuclear stations are undergoing refurbishment and operating at reduced capacity.
Canadians for Nuclear Energy, which is largely funded by power workers' unions, argued closing the 50-year-old facility will result in job losses, emissions increases, heightened reliance on imported natural gas and an electricity supply gap across Ontario.
But Palmer Lockridge, spokesperson for the provincial energy minister, said further extending Pickering’s lifespan isn’t on the table.
“As previously announced in 2020, our government is supporting Ontario Power Generation’s plan to safely extend the life of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station through the end of 2025,” said Lockridge in an emailed response to questions.
“Going forward, we are ensuring a reliable, affordable and clean electricity system for decades to come. That’s why we put a plan in place that ensures we are prepared for the emerging energy needs following the closure of Pickering, and as a result of our government’s success in growing and electrifying the province’s economy.”
The Progressive Conservative government under Premier Doug Ford has invested heavily in electrification, sinking billions into electric vehicle and battery manufacturing and industries like steel-making to retool plants to run on electricity rather than coal, and exploring new large-scale nuclear plants to bolster baseload supply.
Natural gas now provides about seven per cent of the province’s energy, a piece of the pie that will rise significantly as nuclear energy dwindles. Emissions from Ontario’s electricity grid, which is currently one of the world’s cleanest with 94 per cent zero-emission power generation, are projected to rise a whopping 375 per cent as the province turns increasingly to natural gas generation. Those increases will effectively undo a third of the hard-won emissions reductions the province achieved by phasing out coal-fired power generation.
The Independent Electricity System Operator (IESO), which manages Ontario’s grid, studied whether the province could phase out natural gas generation by 2030 and concluded that “would result in blackouts and hinder electrification” and increase average residential electricity costs by $100 per month.
The Ontario Clean Air Alliance, however, obtained draft documents from the electricity operator that showed it had studied, but not released publicly, other scenarios that involved phasing out natural gas without energy shortfalls, price hikes or increases in emissions.
The Ontario government will not reconsider plans to close the Pickering nuclear station and instead stop-gap the consequent electricity shortfall facing Ontario with natural gas-generated power in a move that will hike the province’s greenhouse gas emissions.
One model suggested increasing carbon taxes and imports of clean energy from other provinces could keep blackouts, costs and emissions at bay, while another involved increasing energy efficiency, wind generation and storage.
“By banning gas-fired electricity exports to the U.S., importing all the Quebec water power we can with the existing transmission lines and investing in energy efficiency and wind and solar and storage — do all those things and you can phase out gas-fired power and lower our bills,” said Jack Gibbons, chair of the Ontario Clean Air Alliance.
The IESO has argued in response that the study of those scenarios was not complete and did not include many of the challenges associated with phasing out natural gas plants.
Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith asked the IESO to develop “an achievable pathway to zero-emissions in the electricity sector and evaluate a moratorium on new-build natural gas generation stations,” said his spokesperson. That report, an early look at halting gas power, is expected in November.
ITER Nuclear Fusion advances tokamak magnetic confinement, heating deuterium-tritium plasma with superconducting magnets, targeting net energy gain, tritium breeding, and steam-turbine power, while complementing laser inertial confinement milestones for grid-scale electricity and 2025 startup goals.
Key Points
ITER Nuclear Fusion is a tokamak project confining D-T plasma with magnets to achieve net energy gain and clean power.
✅ Tokamak magnetic confinement with high-temp superconducting coils
✅ Deuterium-tritium fuel cycle with on-site tritium breeding
✅ Targets net energy gain and grid-scale, low-carbon electricity
It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, often described as the holy grail of clean energy by proponents, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.
Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split, with next-gen nuclear power exploring smaller, cheaper, safer designs that remain distinct from fusion. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.
But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research as part of a broader green industrial revolution under way in several regions. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality.
“People are saying, ‘If it really is the ultimate solution, let’s find out whether it works or not,’” says Dr Tim Luce, head of science and operation at the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER), being built in southeast France. ITER is the biggest throw of the fusion dice yet.
Its $22bn (£15.9bn) build cost is being met by the governments of two-thirds of the world’s population, including the EU, the US, China and Russia, at a time when Europe is losing nuclear power and needs energy, and when it’s fired up in 2025 it’ll be the world’s largest fusion reactor. If it works, ITER will transform fusion power from being the stuff of dreams into a viable energy source.
Constructing a nuclear fusion reactor ITER will be a tokamak reactor – thought to be the best hope for fusion power. Inside a tokamak, a gas, often a hydrogen isotope called deuterium, is subjected to intense heat and pressure, forcing electrons out of the atoms. This creates a plasma – a superheated, ionised gas – that has to be contained by intense magnetic fields.
The containment is vital, as no material on Earth could withstand the intense heat (100,000,000°C and above) that the plasma has to reach so that fusion can begin. It’s close to 10 times the heat at the Sun’s core, and temperatures like that are needed in a tokamak because the gravitational pressure within the Sun can’t be recreated.
When atomic nuclei do start to fuse, vast amounts of energy are released. While the experimental reactors currently in operation release that energy as heat, in a fusion reactor power plant, the heat would be used to produce steam that would drive turbines to generate electricity, even as some envision nuclear beyond electricity for industrial heat and fuels.
Tokamaks aren’t the only fusion reactors being tried. Another type of reactor uses lasers to heat and compress a hydrogen fuel to initiate fusion. In August 2021, one such device at the National Ignition Facility, at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, generated 1.35 megajoules of energy. This record-breaking figure brings fusion power a step closer to net energy gain, but most hopes are still pinned on tokamak reactors rather than lasers.
In June 2021, China’s Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST) reactor maintained a plasma for 101 seconds at 120,000,000°C. Before that, the record was 20 seconds. Ultimately, a fusion reactor would need to sustain the plasma indefinitely – or at least for eight-hour ‘pulses’ during periods of peak electricity demand.
A real game-changer for tokamaks has been the magnets used to produce the magnetic field. “We know how to make magnets that generate a very high magnetic field from copper or other kinds of metal, but you would pay a fortune for the electricity. It wouldn’t be a net energy gain from the plant,” says Luce.
One route for nuclear fusion is to use atoms of deuterium and tritium, both isotopes of hydrogen. They fuse under incredible heat and pressure, and the resulting products release energy as heat
The solution is to use high-temperature, superconducting magnets made from superconducting wire, or ‘tape’, that has no electrical resistance. These magnets can create intense magnetic fields and don’t lose energy as heat.
“High temperature superconductivity has been known about for 35 years. But the manufacturing capability to make tape in the lengths that would be required to make a reasonable fusion coil has just recently been developed,” says Luce. One of ITER’s magnets, the central solenoid, will produce a field of 13 tesla – 280,000 times Earth’s magnetic field.
The inner walls of ITER’s vacuum vessel, where the fusion will occur, will be lined with beryllium, a metal that won’t contaminate the plasma much if they touch. At the bottom is the divertor that will keep the temperature inside the reactor under control.
“The heat load on the divertor can be as large as in a rocket nozzle,” says Luce. “Rocket nozzles work because you can get into orbit within minutes and in space it’s really cold.” In a fusion reactor, a divertor would need to withstand this heat indefinitely and at ITER they’ll be testing one made out of tungsten.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Spherical Torus Experiment – Upgrade (NSTX-U) fusion reactor will be fired up in the autumn of 2022, while efforts in advanced fission such as a mini-reactor design are also progressing. One of its priorities will be to see whether lining the reactor with lithium helps to keep the plasma stable.
Choosing a fuel Instead of just using deuterium as the fusion fuel, ITER will use deuterium mixed with tritium, another hydrogen isotope. The deuterium-tritium blend offers the best chance of getting significantly more power out than is put in. Proponents of fusion power say one reason the technology is safe is that the fuel needs to be constantly fed into the reactor to keep fusion happening, making a runaway reaction impossible.
Deuterium can be extracted from seawater, so there’s a virtually limitless supply of it. But only 20kg of tritium are thought to exist worldwide, so fusion power plants will have to produce it (ITER will develop technology to ‘breed’ tritium). While some radioactive waste will be produced in a fusion plant, it’ll have a lifetime of around 100 years, rather than the thousands of years from fission.
At the time of writing in September, researchers at the Joint European Torus (JET) fusion reactor in Oxfordshire were due to start their deuterium-tritium fusion reactions. “JET will help ITER prepare a choice of machine parameters to optimise the fusion power,” says Dr Joelle Mailloux, one of the scientific programme leaders at JET. These parameters will include finding the best combination of deuterium and tritium, and establishing how the current is increased in the magnets before fusion starts.
The groundwork laid down at JET should accelerate ITER’s efforts to accomplish net energy gain. ITER will produce ‘first plasma’ in December 2025 and be cranked up to full power over the following decade. Its plasma temperature will reach 150,000,000°C and its target is to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power for every 50 megawatts of input heating power.
“If ITER is successful, it’ll eliminate most, if not all, doubts about the science and liberate money for technology development,” says Luce. That technology development will be demonstration fusion power plants that actually produce electricity, where advanced reactors can build on decades of expertise. “ITER is opening the door and saying, yeah, this works – the science is there.”
Brazil Energy Emergency Loan Package aims to bolster utilities via BNDES as coronavirus curbs electricity demand. Aneel and the Mines and Energy Ministry weigh measures while Eletrobras privatization and auctions face delays.
Key Points
An emergency plan supporting Brazilian utilities via BNDES and banks during coronavirus demand slumps and payment risks.
✅ Modeled on 2014-2015 sector loans via BNDES and private banks
✅ Addresses cash flow from lower demand and bill nonpayment
✅ Auctions and Eletrobras privatization delayed amid outbreak
Brazil’s government is considering an emergency loan package for energy distributors struggling with lower energy use and facing lost revenues because of the coronavirus outbreak, echoing strains seen elsewhere such as Germany's utility troubles during the energy crisis, an industry group told Reuters.
Marcos Madureira, president of Brazilian energy distributors association Abradee, said the package being negotiated by companies and the government could involve loans from state development bank BNDES or a pool of banks, but that the value of the loans and other details was not yet settled.
Also, Brazil’s Mines and Energy Ministry is indefinitely postponing projects to auction off energy transmission and generation assets planned for this year because of the coronavirus, even as the need for electricity during COVID-19 remained critical, it said in the Official Gazette.
The coronavirus outbreak will also delay the privatization of state-owned utility Eletrobras, its chief executive officer said on Monday.
The potential loan package under discussion would resemble a similar measure in 2014 and 2015 that offered about 22 billion reais ($4.2 billion) in loans to the sector as Brazil was entering its deepest recession on record, and drawing comparisons to a proposed Texas market bailout after a winter storm, Madureira said.
Public and private banks including BNDES, Caixa Economica Federal, Itau Unibanco and Banco Bradesco participated in those loans.
Three sources involved in the discussions said on condition of anonymity that the Mines and Energy Ministry and energy regulator Aneel were considering the matter.
Aneel declined to comment. The Mines and Energy Ministry and BNDES did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The coronavirus has led to widespread lockdowns of non-essential businesses in Brazil, while citizens are being told to stay home. That is causing lost income for many hourly and informal workers in Brazil, who could be unable to pay their electricity bills, raising risks of pandemic power shut-offs for vulnerable households.
The government sees a loan package as a way to stave off a potential chain of defaults in the sector, a move discussed alongside measures such as a Brazil tax strategy on energy prices, one of the sources said.
On a conference call with investors about the company’s latest earnings, Eletrobras CEO Wilson Ferreira Jr. said privatization would be delayed, without giving any more details on the projected time scale.
The largest investors in Brazil’s energy distribution sector include Italy’s Enel, Spain’s Iberdrola via its subsidiary Neoenergia and China’s State Grid via CPFL Energia, with Chinese interest also evidenced by CTG's bid for EDP, as well as local players Energisa e Equatorial Energia.
EPA Power Plant Emissions Rule proposes strict greenhouse gas limits for coal and gas units, leveraging carbon capture (CCS) under the Clean Air Act to cut CO2 and accelerate decarbonization of the U.S. grid.
Key Points
A proposed EPA rule setting CO2 limits for coal and gas plants, using CCS to cut power-sector greenhouse gases.
✅ Applies to existing and new coal and large gas units
✅ Targets near-zero CO2 by 2038 via CCS or retirement
✅ Cites grid, health, and climate benefits; faces legal challenges
The Biden administration has proposed new limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants, its most ambitious effort yet to roll back planet-warming pollution from the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.
A rule announced by the Environmental Protection Agency could force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using a technology that has long been promised but is not used widely in the United States, and arrives amid changes stemming from the NEPA rewrite that affect project reviews.
“This administration is committed to meeting the urgency of the climate crisis and taking the necessary actions required,″ said EPA Administrator Michael Regan.
The plan would not only “improve air quality nationwide, but it will bring substantial health benefits to communities all across the country, especially our front-line communities ... that have unjustly borne the burden of pollution for decades,” Regan said in a speech at the University of Maryland.
President Joe Biden, whose climate agenda includes a clean electricity standard as a key pillar, called the plan “a major step forward in the climate crisis and protecting public health.”
If finalized, the proposed regulation would mark the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, following a Trump-era replacement of Obama’s power plant overhaul, which generate about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule also would apply to future electric plants and would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042, equivalent to annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, the EPA said.
Almost all coal plants — along with large, frequently used gas-fired plants — would have to cut or capture nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions by 2038, the EPA said, a timeline that echoed concerns raised during proposed electricity pricing changes in the prior administration. Plants that cannot meet the new standards would be forced to retire.
The plan is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states, much like litigation over the Affordable Clean Energy rule unfolded in recent years. They have accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and warn of a pending reliability crisis for the electric grid. The power plant rule is one of at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater treatment rules.
“It’s truly an onslaught” of government regulation “designed to shut down the coal fleet prematurely,″ said Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association.
Regan denied that the power plant rule was aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but acknowledged — even after the end to the 'war on coal' rhetoric — “We will see some coal retirements.”
Whether you would prefer Live Online or In-Person
instruction, our electrical training courses can be
tailored to meet your company's specific requirements
and delivered to your employees in one location or at
various locations.
