Impact of EPA’s Regulatory Assault on Power Plants–February 7 Update

Posted February 7, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

Impact of EPA’s Regulatory Assault on Power Plants:
New Regulations to Take 33 GW of Electricity Generation Offline and the Plant Closing Announcements Keep Coming…

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-fired plant they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them…”
– Barack Obama speaking to San Francisco Chronicle, January 2008

February 7, 2012—Update

More than 33 gigawatts (GW) of electrical generating capacity are now set to retire because of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Mercury and Air Toxics Rule (colloquially called Utility MACT)[1] and the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)[2] regulations. Most of these retirements will come from coal-fired power plants, shuttering nearly 10 percent of the U.S.’s coal-fired generating capacity.

This report is an update of a report the Institute for Energy Research (IER) issued in October 2011.[3] In the original report, we calculated that 28 GW of generating capacity would close as a result of EPA’s regulations. At the time, we warned that “this number will grow as plant operators continue to release their EPA compliance plans.” Unfortunately, this statement has proven to be true. This update, a mere four months later, shows that over 33 GW of electrical generating capacity will close—nearly a 5 GW increase.

According to EPA, their modeling of Utility MACT and CSAPR indicates that these regulations will only shutter 14.5 GW of electricity generation capacity. But events in the real world already show that EPA’s modeling is a gross underestimate.

To calculate the impact of EPA’s rules, we first assumed that EPA’s modeling was correct. Then, we looked at statements, filings, and announcements from electrical generators where the generators were closing power plants and citing EPA’s regulations as the precipitating cause of the plant closures. We then compared EPA’s modeling outputs with the announcements and created a master list of plant closures as the result of EPA regulations (the master list is below).

Combining actual announcements with EPA’s modeling shows that EPA’s modeling grossly underestimates the actual number of closures. As noted above, EPA calculated that only 14.5 GW of electrical generating capacity would close as a result of its rules. But the reality is that over 33 GW of power generating capacity will close—over twice as much as EPA’s modeling predicted. Worse, as utilities continue to assess how to comply with EPA’s finalized Utility MACT rule and CSAPR, there will likely be further plant closure announcements in the coming weeks and months.

Since Our First Report was Released in October, an Additional 5 GW of Retirements Due to EPA Regulations Have Been Announced

Operators in Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin   have announced new closures since we first published our closure list four months ago.  Additionally, operators in Minnesota announced they would cease plans to convert a coal plant to natural gas, letting the plant retire due to EPA regulations.[4]  In just two short months, retirements related to EPA regulations have grown by 5 GW, over one third of the total retirements predicted by EPA.

NERC is Concerned about Reliability even though It Underestimates the Amount of Closures

It should be further noted that the North American Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) modeling of the MACT rule and CSAPR estimate that under the worst case, or “strict” scenarios, 16.3 GW of electricity capacity will be closed due to the regulations, and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) “stringent” test shows that only 21 GW of generating capacity will be closed. Even though NERC’s estimate is much lower than what our analysis shows, NERC is concerned that the closures will cause electricity reliability problems.[5] How much greater will the reliability problems be, given that retirements appears to be twice as great as NERC estimates?

Announced and EPA Projected Retirements Are Significantly Higher than DOE’s Worst Case Scenarios

The Obama administration’s DOE recently released a study claiming that even under a theoretical “stringent” test, EPA regulations would only close 21 GW of generation.  EPA has since claimed this study proves regulations will not threaten reliability. Our analysis, however, shows that between EPA projections and operator announcements, over 33 GW of generation will close—almost 12 GW more than DOE’s supposedly ultra-strict test scenario.

Michigan and Ohio Hit Worst By Latest Announcements

In our updated analysis, the vast majority of new announced retirements will occur in Michigan and Ohio. Operators in Michigan have announced more than 1 GW of closures due to EPA regulations.[6] Michigan, already reeling from record high unemployment, has warned that further closures due to the regulations could threaten reliability in both the Upper and Lower Peninsulas. The situation is not better in Ohio. FirstEnergy has announced more than 2.3 GW of closures due to EPA regulations in Ohio.[7]

Updated List of Powerplant Closures

Here is our updated list of powerplants set to close according to EPA’s modeling and public announcements. The methodology is described in detail in the Appendix of the PDF.

 


[1] Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Rule, Mar. 2011, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/ria_toxics_rule.pdf

[2] Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the final Transport Rule, http://www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf

[3] Institute for Energy Research, IER Identifies Coal Fired Power Plants Likely to Close as Result of EPA Regulations, Oct. 7, 2011, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/10/07/ier-identifies-coal-fired-power-plants-likely-to-close-as-result-of-epa-regulations/.

[4] David Shaffer, Xcel’s power pullback, Star Tribune, Dec. 1. 2011, http://www.startribune.com/business/134825258.html.

[5] See North American Electric Reliability Corp, 2011 Long-Term Reliability Assessment, Nov. 2011, http://www.nerc.com/files/2011LTRA_Final.pdf.

[6] Cassandra Sweet, Michigan Utility to Scrap ‘Clean-Coal’ Plant, Shut Older Coal Unit, Wall Street Journal, http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20111202-713204.html

[7] FirstEnergy, FirstEnergy, Citing Impact of Environmental Regulations, Will Retire Six Coal-Fired Power Plants (Press Release), Jan. 26, 2012, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/firstenergy-citing-impact-of-environmental-regulations-will-retire-six-coal-fired-power-plants-138115263.html.

This post has no tags yet.
Author:
Daniel Simmons

The Obama-Salazar Offshore Charade Oil

Posted January 26, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

The Obama administration announced today that the Department of Interior will hold a consolidated lease sale for the Central Gulf of Mexico region, thus concluding the lease sales scheduled in 2007 and required by law.  The timing of the announcement and the high profile the administration is giving it appears designed to make the American public think that President Obama is fulfilling his State of the Union pledge to “open up more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”  The facts, however, tell a different story.  Consider the following:

1.  The Obama administration claims that this sale is a component of the President’s desire to “promote safe and responsible domestic oil and gas production as a part of a comprehensive energy strategy.”

FACT:  President Obama imposed a job-killing moratorium on offshore energy development in the Gulf of Mexico that cost America at least 12,000 jobs and more than $2 billion over the course of the first six months of the moratorium.  The only reason the Administration is holding a new lease sale for the Central Gulf of Mexico is because the sale is required as a part of the Congressionally-sanctioned 2007-2012 Five Year Plan, according to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act of 1978 (OCSLA).  If the administration did not hold this sale before June 30, 2011, it would not be fulfilling the intent of the law.

2.  The Obama administration claims that this lease sale will open up new offshore lands for energy development.

FACT:  Today’s announced lease sale does not open any lands for exploration that were not already scheduled two years before President Obama took office.  The 2007-2012 Five Year OCS Lease Plan included 16 sales in 6 offshore areas.  Of these 16 sales, the Obama administration cancelled or delayed a number of them.  Of the 2 that remain in the Central Gulf, the administration has scheduled them for simultaneous sale, which means that only one sale will actually occur.  The Obama administration also cancelled a lease sale for areas off the coast of Virginia, and permanently removed 5 sales off the coast of Alaska.  In 2010, the Obama administration did not hold a single lease sale, the first time this has happened in many years.

3.  The Obama administration claims that this sale is a part of its strategy to “increase responsible domestic production and reduce dependence on foreign oil.”

FACT:  Even once the remaining 2007-2012 sales are complete, the administration has shown little interest in reducing America’s oil imports.  The reductions in imports that have occurred in recent years owe more to the sluggish economy and reduced demand from American consumers than administration energy policy.  Moreover, in recent weeks, the president single-handedly denied the Keystone XL pipeline permit, which would have made up to 830,000 barrels of North American oil available daily to U.S. markets.

4.  The Obama administration claims that the terms of this sale will “ensure that taxpayers receive a fair market value for offshore resources.”

FACT: U.S. taxpayers received 258 times less revenue from offshore lease sales last year than they did under the last year of the Bush administration. Revenue from offshore lease sales has plummeted from nearly $9.5 billion in FY2008 to paltry $36.7 million in FY2011.

5.  The Obama administration claims that it is developing a new Five Year Plan for 2012-2017 that will “make more than 75 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and gas estimated on the OCS available for development.”

FACT:  The United States currently has leased a mere 2.2% of available lands on the Outer Continental Shelf.  The amount of un-leased lands that are not currently leased for energy development is equal to ten times the acreage of the entire State of Texas.  Currently, limits on offshore production keep annual production to only 588 million barrels of oil — or less than 1/10th of our annual demand — even though the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement estimates that the U.S. has about 86 billion barrels of undiscovered oil in the Outer Continental Shelf.  Nevertheless, the Obama administration continues to block exploration of the vast majority of America’s offshore resources.

Furthermore, the current Five Year Plan expires on June 30, 2012.  The law mandates that the administration to present to Congress a new Five Year Plan, which requires a 60-day review period before final authorization.  This means that the Obama administration must present the new Five Year Plan to Congress before May 1, 2012.  If the administration does not produce a plan before then, the United States runs the risk of having no legal framework to develop the Outer Continental Shelf for the first time since the passage of OCSLA in 1978.

###

Author:
IER

President Obama’s Record on Oil and Gas Production

Posted January 24, 2012 | folder icon Print this page

Since President Obama took office, total U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased. This increase, however, has happened in spite of the President, not because of him. The increase in production is occurring on private and state lands, the use of which is much harder for the President to restrict (at least in the short term). Meanwhile, production on federal lands is decreasing significantly. This decrease isn’t a result of President Obama’s policies exclusively, but it is the result of decades and policies that have systematically reduced energy production on federal lands.

The Basic Facts:

  • The government leases less than 2.2 percent of federal offshore areas[i] and less than 6 percent of federal onshore lands for oil and natural gas production.[ii]

[**Update** The following bullet cites data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA subsequently discovered that the data they used for determining oil and natural gas production numbers on federal lands were incorrect and they are working to fix the problem. The Department of Interior, which regulates energy production on federal lands, is working with EIA to develop a system that more adequately reflects production clearly, and we will update the oil and natural gas production charts when the federal government completes its coordination and updates its information.]

  • Oil and natural gas production on federal lands has fallen by over 40 percent since 2000.[iii]
  • Since 2000, oil production on private and state lands has risen by 11 percent and natural gas production has risen by 40 percent.[iv]
  • President Obama has leased less than half of the offshore acres than President Clinton leased.

The source for the amount of oil and natural gas produced on federal land is the Energy Information Administration’s (part of the Department of Energy) Annual Energy Review, which analyzes historical energy trends.

The data from the Annual Energy Review is clear: the increase in U.S. oil and natural gas production is because of production on private and state lands in places like North Dakota. Almost all of North Dakota’s Bakken formation is on private lands, and as a result, production has dramatically increased. Over the past 10 years, North Dakota oil production has increased by over 250 percent, while federal oil and natural gas production has fallen over 40 percent.

President Obama cannot honestly claim credit for the increase in oil and natural gas production over the past few years. This misconstrues the facts and it is an inaccurate portrayal of his administration’s record on energy issues. After all, his administration did not hold a single offshore lease sale in fiscal year 2011, while the Bush administration planned to hold five.  Those sales were rejected when the administration decided not to pursue a new 2010–2015 OCS lease plan reflecting the expiration of the presidential and congressional moratoriums on leasing in 2008.  Also, President Obama’s Bureau of Land Management is setting records for the least amount of leases on average per year. President Clinton sold over twice the number of leases per year than President Obama.

 

 

 

 


[i] See Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, Offshore Energy and Minerals Management, http://www.boemre.gov/offshore/.  According to the administration’s website, the outer continental shelf is 1.76 billion acres (http://www.boemre.gov/ld/PDFs/GreenBook-LeasingDocument.pdf page 1) and only 38 million acres are leased (Department of Interior, Oil and Gas Lease Utilization – Onshore and Offshore, http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=239255 page 4). That is a mere 2.16% of the entire Outer Continental Shelf. 

[ii] According to the Department of Interior, 38 million acres of onshore lands are leased for oil and natural gas production. See Table 3 in Department of Interior, Oil and Gas Lease Utilization—Onshore and Offshore, http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=239255. According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal government owns just over 650 million acres of land. See Appendix A. Congressional Research Service, Major Federal Land Management Agencies: Management of Our Nation’s Lands and Resources, May 15, 1995, http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/natural/nrgen-3.cfm. The federal government also controls an additional 58 million acres of federal mineral estate below privately owned surface estate. See Bureau of Land Management, Split Estate, http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wo/MINERALS__REALTY__AND_RESOURCE_PROTECTION_/bmps.Par.98100.File.dat/SplitEstate08finalWeb.pdf.

[iii] See Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Review 2010, Table 1.14  Fossil Fuel Production on Federally Administered Lands, 1949-2010, Oct. 19, 2011, http://205.254.135.24/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/sec1_31.pdf.

[iv] Id.

This post has no tags yet.
Author:
Daniel Simmons