It was never specified, but I assume the proposed standard uses a maximum lbs CO2 per kWh over the "system." So the court had problems with that control envelope of "system" instead of the source/powerplant. Lots of talk about using CCS or "co-firing" to reduce onsite CO2/kWh.

Here is an alternative: To reward using the damn things less, rewrite the standard(s) in terms of lbs/kW(capacity)-yr (annual hours determined by generator type or location).

The obvious loophole is that someone/place could just overbuild fossil capacity and use all their generators for fewer hours, but I think would be rare. The original standard was "met" through a loophole anyway; shifting coal to gas baseload plants and not counting associated GHG emissions from upstream methane venting and leaking.

This method could apply to other emissions in play now, i.e. NOx as ozone precursor.

For example, baseload power plants would be initially "allowed" say 4000 lbs/kW-yr, so a coal plant (2 lbs/kWh) could only operate 2000 hours per year and a gas combined cycle plant could only operate 4500 hours or so. "Peaker" plants would be allowed fewer lbs/kW-yr, that is fewer hours.

Right now the regulatory frameworks (and big CO2 burial subsidies and some local siting provisions and inertia and...) are driving us full speed toward lots of gas CCS baseload w/a bit of storage for peaking.

This other way would still reward emissions reductions from renewable zero-emissions generation without including that other generation in a "system." "Cycling" baseload steam cycle plants can be enhanced with a few modifications to allow faster warmup/dispatch. It's not like falling off a log, but adding CCS is not either. This allows a slower, maybe more just "transition" in fossil fuel plant communities by unwinding the use instead of straight to "shut it down," and allows many of the existing plants to be used as the dispatchable backup leg in the four legged stool of solar/wind/short term storage/backup.

Expand full comment

This articles summarize well the situation with this week's latest EPA decision from SCOTUS. The point may not have been to limit the EPA as much as it is to "soften up" everyone for the next session when the foundation now laid can become the introduction for many new reforms to limit the "administrative state". Ultimately, this is intended to limit the size of government. The other impacts were not considered.

The Supreme Court’s EPA Ruling: A Loss of Authority for Federal Agencies or a Lesson for Conservatives in ‘Be Careful What You Wish For’? - Inside Climate News


This next article may not seem related--it is.

Next up: voting rights, as US supreme court set to tear up more protections | US news | The Guardian


Like the recent ruling on reproductive rights, this can potentially become a major problem for the Republican party. The nation is changing demographically--Gen Z is not patient with more delay and denial of climate priorities. Like many of us, more people are experiencing the extremes of the climate crisis, and are certainly more aware of people around the planet who are in worse situations. The Republican party has a record of doing nothing to disrupt the fossil fuel economy--regardless of how extreme local or global conditions are becoming. Now, the SCOTUS is telling them that unless they cooperate to enact climate legislation that specifically moves us away from a fossil fuel economy, it will not happen. This will become especially true should they recapture either the House or the Senate. Should a Republican be elected in 2024--doubtful IMO, they will be in a pressure cooker of their own invention. As the temperatures go up, the pressure on the party will increase proportionally to the discomfort of voters--even if they succeed in totally removing the right to vote in many states, they will likely be burned by the outcomes. This is the stuff from which a revolution is made.


Expand full comment