Archives

PUR Guide 2012 Fully Updated Version

Available NOW!

This comprehensive self-study certification course is designed to teach the novice or pro everything they need to understand and succeed in every phase of the public utilities business.

Order Now

The States' Modest Request of the EPA

Given the expense, delay the implementation until the courts decide

While the final Clean Power Plan was meant to clarify the new regulations of the electrical grid, it has several things that can be quibbled with besides the 1,500-plus pages. Ultimately, the thorniest issue is the question of the constitutional right of the EPA, or for that matter any federal agency, to impose federal mandates on the electrical grid where none existed before. That said, the fact 16 states, a full third of the 48 states effected, have asked the EPA to voluntarily stay implementation of the final CPP regulations until the constitutional litigation over the rule is resolved.


In addition, there are several flaws in the details of the final EPA plan. First, the EPA has given no guidance as to what changes it has made to the CPP to derive its final form; second, the medical evidence supporting the indirect health benefits remains scanty; third, the choices of computational methodologies underpinning the whole plan are still very opaque and seemingly arbitrary; fourth, the final rules are very divisive as they pit many groups, states and regions against each other; and finally, because the legal justification for Clean Power Plan remains unresolved, it has and will create a massive financial and jurisdictional uncertainty.

Certainly, it is understandable that many people and groups have been frustrated by the lack of a concrete national energy plan, which makes them more receptive to any federal entity finally attempting to bring order to the chaos of the “cooperative federalism,” which includes a large and diverse groups of interests and responsibilities. The electrical grid is a remarkably complex organism, which includes tens of trillions of dollars in assets and millions of often highly trained individuals.

That said, one can't help wondering why the EPA didn't provide a primer that included all the major changes it made from the June 2, 2014 plan to finished plan of August 3, 2015, because as Brian Potts put it, “Virtually everything is difference.” Highlighting the changes certainly would have added more transparency to a very complex new document.

In particular, the EPA should provide a more direct and detailed explanation of the indirect health benefits it continues to cite. In fact, it would be interesting for the EPA to provide statistical information on the number of asthma attacks, premature deaths and other related negative human effects, since June 2, 2014. Or, the EPA might document the indirect health harm done while waiting for implementation of the Clean Power Plan.

There is an old saying that “if one tortures the facts long enough, they will confess to anything.” In other words, why did the EPA change their various models, theories and numbers to derive its new plan? Are all of the computations comprised of cherry picking information or is there a deeper set of facts and information that infused the plan's methodology?

Worst of all, it is divisive: It pits commercial interests against each other, it pits states that benefit from the plan against states that are harmed, it pits utilities, large or small, against each other according to their fleet of electrical power sources, it pits renewable resources like wind, solar, ethanol and even non-emitting nuclear against each other for funding, it pits one region of the country against the other regions of the country, it pits state utility commissions against each other, it pits industrial energy efficiency against residential energy efficiency and finally it pits states that have cap and trade emission schemes against those that don't (and probably subtly creates a national cap and trade system without legislative mandate).

Then, there is the matter of uncertainty that the EPA's Clean Power Plan has cast over the entire electrical grid financial market. To make matters worse, the investment money so necessary for funding and financing new electrical grid investments cannot be made before the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the CPP. As has happened before, states or businesses will not be reimbursed for any money spent, if the CPP is declared unconstitutional.

A lot is at stake for the continuing economic development of the states, the regions and the United States. It seems like a modest request from Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming to stay the implementation of the EPA's Clean Power Plan until all of the legal issues are finally settled.

Certainly, the impressive progress made on greenhouse gas reductions in the 2005-2014 period and the “glide path” the electrical grid is already on without EPA mandates should count. In the interest of national unity, political fairness and economic development, the EPA should honor the modest request of the 16 effected states.
 

Stephen Heins is an energy and regulator consultant for a Wall Street firm . Previously, Heins was Vice President of Corporate Communication for Orion Energy Systems, a publicly-traded leader in innovating energy and lighting systems based in Manitowoc, Wis. - See more at: http://spark.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/lets-have-full-disclosure-harva...
Stephen Heins is an energy and regulator consultant for a Wall Street firm . Previously, Heins was Vice President of Corporate Communication for Orion Energy Systems, a publicly-traded leader in innovating energy and lighting systems based in Manitowoc, Wis. - See more at: http://spark.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/lets-have-full-disclosure-harva...

Steve Heins is an energy consultant based in Wisconsin.

Stephen Heins is an energy and regulator consultant for a Wall Street firm . Previously, Heins was Vice President of Corporate Communication for Orion Energy Systems, a publicly-traded leader in innovating energy and lighting systems based in Manitowoc, Wis. - See more at: http://spark.fortnightly.com/fortnightly/lets-have-full-disclosure-harva...

For a different perspective, see Ken Silverstein's story in Forbes: “Despite Lawsuits, Even Coal States Will Comply With The Clean Power Plan”

Be sure to attend the Fortnightly's conference in Scottsdale, Ariz., on November 17-18 to discuss the disruptive technologies and regulations shaping the energy industry, with some powerful new speakers being arranged. Among the latest: Murray Energy CEO Bob Murry, who will debate those who say new carbon rules are essential.

Lead image © Can Stock Photo Inc. / zoombstock