Electrical Contractor

ALTERNATIVEENERGY BY CHUCK ROSS

The plan certainly isn’t dead. Regardless of how the appeals court rules on West Virginia, et al. v. EPA, et al., the losing side is almost guaranteed to bring an appeal to the Supreme Court as soon as this fall. However, the justices likely won’t announce their decision—which could be a 4–4 tie if Antonin Scalia hasn’t been replaced—until June 2017 at the earliest. With a new president, who might oppose the plan—and a possibility the Supreme Court could order a rehearing of the case with a full bench in the case of a previous tie—legal battles could delay the issue for several years.

In the meantime, some states are continuing to develop plans to reach CPP targets. The plan requires states to prepare and submit their plans to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) between 2016 and 2018, and 21 states have committed to meeting that deadline. Beyond such commitments, though, ongoing market forces might end up taking the United States much closer to CPP goals than previously thought possible, thanks in large part to the low pricing of natural gas fuel supplies and falling solar-and wind-power costs.

At a high level, the CPP sets a national goal to reduce electricity-generation-related carbon emissions by 32 percent over 2005 levels by 2030. This goal is ambitious, but the good news is we’re already almost halfway toward meeting it. As of the end of 2014, the latest year for which the U.S. Energy Information Administration has figures, emissions had fallen by 15 percent over 2005. Coal is the biggest source of carbon emissions among fossil fuels, and now it accounts for

34 percent of U.S. electricity generation,
At the state level, data appears
equally promising, according to research
done by the Union of Concerned Scien-
tists. The group’s August 2015 report,
“States of Progress,” offers the following
observations:

• At least 31 states are on track to be more than halfway to their 2022 targets (the CPP sets intermediate state-level emission-reduction goals between 2016 and 2030).

• At least 21 states (including several that are now part of the CPP lawsuit) are on track to surpass their 2022 emissions-reduction targets.

• At least 16 states are on track to achieve their 2030 targets based on existing clean-energy commitments.

Factors behind these significant emissions reductions include the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) that took effect April 2015. These standards require noncompliant generating plants to install pollution-control equipment. These standards are tied up in a lawsuit that the Supreme Court recently bounced back to a federal appeals court, Michigan v. EPA. Many plant owners have decided to shut them down rather than wait for a final verdict. A September 2015 report from SNL Energy anticipated a total of 14. 6 gigawatts of coal-generation capacity would be shuttered by the end of 2015.

In addition to the continued pres-
sure of inexpensive natural gas as a
cleaner-burning alternative, coal-plant
operators also are seeing utility-scale
wind and solar plants becoming more
cost-competitive. Nationally, the lev-
elized cost of electricity (a figure that
incorporates upfront capital and devel-
opment expenses, along with financing
and maintenance fees) produced by
onshore wind remains higher than that
for natural gas and coal, but the gap is
quickly closing, according to Bloomberg
New Energy Finance. In some wind-rich
regions, such as Texas and Iowa, wind-
power costs are actually lower.
Neither coal’s decreasing influence
nor the increased importance and afford-
ability of natural gas and renewables are
trends that will reverse soon, if ever. In
fact, renewables have plenty of room for
growth. In 2015, wind and solar power
surpassed natural gas in terms of new
generation capacity installed. Even state-
level renewable portfolio mandates are
becoming less important for electric
utilities. A GTM Research report found
that more than half of utility-scale solar
capacity planned for development this
year will fall outside of the requirements
set by state renewable portfolio standards.
One major driver for the CPP was the
statement it made to the international
community regarding the United States’
commitment to reducing emissions,
especially as a follow-up to the Paris
climate talks held late last year. Some
nations could certainly see the current
court battles as a repudiation of any such
commitment. However, market forces
appear likely to succeed where legal
mandates might fail, which could prove
much more significant than any single
political statement to the larger world
goal of addressing climate change.
With or Without You

Cleaner power is coming no matter what

WHEN THE SUPREME COURT put President Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan (CPP) on hold in February, pending a federal appeals court case scheduled for June, clean-energy advocates feared this move would jeopardize national efforts to reduce carbon emissions. However, a closer look at current progress, and at market forces likely to support natural gas and renewable-electricity generation, raises a question—does the CPP really matter?