49 US states making plans to cut power plant emissions

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s plans to finalise the rules on carbon emissions from power plants are still several months away. But most states, even those challenging the agency in court, are already investigating ways to comply.

The EPA expects 49 states to submit plans once the rules are finalised. The non-partisan group Great Plains Institute for Sustainable Development, which has been organising talks in the US midwest on the clean power plan, says 41 states have joined regional groups exploring options to comply with the rule.

“My guess would be all 49 are,” said Doug Scott, a vice president at the Great Plains Institute. “Whether they’re part of formalised groups or not, all the states are trying to figure out what the best options are.”

Many of these states have been staunchly opposed to the rule. Twelve have sued the EPA, claiming it is unlawful and amounts to a federal power grab. And at least half a dozen other states have set up legislative hurdles for the environmental agencies in charge of putting together a compliance plan.

Yet the vast majority of state agencies charged with drafting a compliance plan have sidestepped these political fights and begun work on plans that might meet the EPA’s carbon reduction targets.

“Even the ‘reddest’ [Republican] states have recognised that while the political leadership may want to go ahead with challenging the rule, if those challenges don’t prevail the governors will come back and say, ‘We lost, now what are we going to do?’ It would be irresponsible for the agencies to not have a plan B developed,” said Ken Colburn, a senior associate at the Regulatory Assistance Project, a nonprofit organisation that provides technical assistance on energy and environment issues.

State environmental and utility agencies have been busy laying the groundwork: organising meetings with the coal industry, power companies and clean energy groups; consulting models to evaluate carbon reduction strategies; participating in workshops; and discussing options with neighbouring states to submit a regional plan.

New York and its north-eastern neighbours are ahead of the curve. Having spent years establishing a carbon-trading programme, the north-eastern states already have mature and sophisticated plans to reduce emissions that will likely satisfy the EPA’s requirements. And on the west coast, California’s legislative efforts have ensured that it is on track to cut carbon emissions.

Others, however, are starting from scratch. Coal states, most of which are suing the EPA over the rule, have little experience in cutting carbon emissions. Few have overarching climate policies or strategies to encourage investments in renewables such as solar and wind energy.

The federal carbon rules, unveiled in June 2014 and expected to be finalised this summer, aim to decrease carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s power plants. The EPA, the agency that formulated the rules and is leading the effort, has assigned each state a goal for emission reductions. The targets range from 11% (North Dakota) to 72% (Washington) by 2030. Once the final rules are announced, states are expected to submit plans for meeting those targets within a year, with the possibility of extensions.

An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental group, found that 31 states are well on their way to meet the EPA’s interim targets. In fact, coal-heavy states such as Kentucky will likely be able to meet their final targets without initiating significant changes due to coal plant retirements triggered by other federal regulations and competitive pressure from natural gas.

Groups such as the National Governors Association and the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) have taken an early lead to help states navigate the regulations. Last month the NACAA released a 465-page report exploring 25 approaches states could use to reduce carbon emissions. “There are enough … entrees in our menu that can whet the appetite of any state that is hungry to reduce greenhouse gas,” said Bill Becker, executive director of the NACAA.

The strategies range from those already cited by the EPA in its rule – promoting clean energy, retiring ageing power plants and switching fuels – as well as more innovative options such as trying to reduce power loss during transmission and improving coal quality. It also lists controversial programmes such as carbon capture, which currently does not exist on a commercial scale, and carbon trading, which is still gaining political support.

The National Governors Association has also launched an initiative to help states study ways to comply with the carbon regulations. In March it selected four states – Utah, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Michigan – to participate in what it called a “policy academy”.

“The goal of this effort is to help states examine cost-effective strategies for meeting the potential requirements of forthcoming federal regulations,” said Jodi Omear, director of communications and marketing for the association.

Only one state so far has publicly refused to submit a plan: Oklahoma. Governor Mary Fallin issued an executive order in April directing state agencies not to come up with a plan to cut carbon pollution. If Oklahoma ultimately refuses to submit a plan, the EPA will require the state to comply with a federal plan.