What Others Are Saying

Below is a collection of quotes from industry experts, policymakers, officials, and others on various electrical grid issues.  Use the filters below to find perspectives on topics like coal retirements, reliability, regulations and more. 

“When I read some of the EPA documents when they were releasing the rule, one thing really struck me was a quote. They said the power sector has a broad set of tools to deploy clean, affordable energy, take advantage of ready to go advance pollution technology, create and retain good paying jobs and reduce energy costs for families and businesses. Now you can debate many of the things in that quote, but to suggest that this rule or the energy transition as a whole is going to reduce costs, energy costs for Americans? That’s just irresponsible. That is not what we’re looking at. And we can’t keep promising that to people.”

“We urge the EPA to rescind its Clean Power Plan 2.0 proposal and make affordability, reliability, and the limits of its authorities under the Clean Air Act cornerstones of any future proposal. The more time that has passed since the proposal, the more issues with the Clean Power Plan 2.0 have been uncovered. The proposal is beyond repair and must be withdrawn. Failing to do so and moving ahead with the proposal would significantly threaten the safety and reliability of the electric grid. The impact of these flaws will ultimately be borne by ratepayers through higher energy costs and the effects of reduced reliability on economic opportunity and public health and safety. Low-income and other vulnerable Americans will be disproportionately affected due to the regressive nature of energy cost increases.”

“We urge the EPA to rescind its Clean Power Plan 2.0 proposal and make affordability, reliability, and the limits of its authorities under the Clean Air Act cornerstones of any future proposal. The more time that has passed since the proposal, the more issues with the Clean Power Plan 2.0 have been uncovered. The proposal is beyond repair and must be withdrawn. Failing to do so and moving ahead with the proposal would significantly threaten the safety and reliability of the electric grid. The impact of these flaws will ultimately be borne by ratepayers through higher energy costs and the effects of reduced reliability on economic opportunity and public health and safety. Low-income and other vulnerable Americans will be disproportionately affected due to the regressive nature of energy cost increases.”

“When it comes to concerns with the rules, one of the things that I would put forward is that timeline is one of the most important aspects when it comes to the infrastructure and technology available to it. When you look at where SRP is located out in Arizona, I would refer you to the SunZia transmission line. This transmission line between New Mexico and Arizona has taken more than 16 years to get permitted. And I think I would use that as an example of where you have adequate investment, you have interest and desire by energy entities are really just out in the west we have a significant amount of federal land and that adds to the permitting requirements, the siting requirements to actually get infrastructure built. So, while we understand and appreciate the mission that EPA is trying to accomplish, we think it needs to be met with the practicality of trying to turn plans no matter how ambition in into reality and infrastructure.”

“The technology is being developed, but it’s not here. And the EPA is pointed to a few projects, but they’re not scaled up and they’re not online so the timeframe is way too short. I mean, if you think about it, it took us 100 years to get to where we are the most reliable, dependable, affordable electric system in the world. And now we’re trying to change it in eight years. And that’s just not going to work. We need more time to get to these new technologies that are being developed.”

“EPA is proposal is not salvageable. The real question is whether reliability might be salvageable. First, even if we put aside the enormous cost involved in the proposed rule relies on CCS and clean hydrogen, neither of which are ready at levels and scales for a sound economy that requires certainty and not in all regions of the country. The infrastructure needed for both technologies is not now and will not be in place at the scale to meet EPA’s deadlines. For instance, the developer of the Heartland Greenway CCS pipeline project, relied upon by the EPA and its analysis, recently cancelled the project.”

“Overall position is that EPA ‘s proposal is unlawful and unworkable. The only way that the proposed rule will not have detrimental effects on the electric liability is for EPA to withdraw it.”

 “When I read some of the EPA documents when they were releasing the rule, one thing really struck me was a quote. They said the power sector has a broad set of tools to deploy clean, affordable energy, take advantage of ready to go advance pollution technology, create and retain good paying jobs and reduce energy costs for families and businesses. Now you can debate many of the things in that quote, but to suggest that this rule or the energy transition as a whole is going to reduce costs, energy costs for Americans? That’s just irresponsible. That is not what we’re looking at. And we can’t keep promising that to people.”

“While CCS and hydrogen co-firing technologies show promise, they are not yet commercially or economically viable on a grid-scale basis—and there are no assurances they will become so on EPA’s optimistic timeline. If EPA’s proposed rule drives coal and gas resources to retire before enough replacement capacity is built with the critical attributes the system needs, grid reliability will be compromised.”

“And by the way, that is before the EPA came out with the power plant rule, which is going to make that number even worse, as every RTO knows. The numbers don’t add up. You lose 8 gigs of dispatchable, and you pick up 24 gigs of wind and solar, [you think] you’re fine right now. You’re not fine, because as we all know, a megawatt of nameplate wind and solar is not equal to a megawatt of nameplate coal or gas. It’s just reality.”

[Will the “current and proposed EPA power generation regulations make the problem with gas fuel supply worse?”] “Yes, because they’re going to drive up the cost of operating a coal generating unit. And if you drive up the cost, obviously that has to be paid for. Now, if the unit is in rate base, meaning in a vertically integrated state, well, then, consumers ultimately would have to pay the cost because cost in a per unit that’s in rate base, they get cost recovery through that mechanism.” […] “So, that unit could potentially stay open with consumers paying the additional cost. If the unit is in one of our RTO markets and they’re already at a point where they’re not recovering their capital costs or their operating costs through the market, then you know, you add additional costs, it just makes them even less financially viable. So, they’ll close even sooner.”

“We’ve been watching carbon capture technology for some time, and it’s at least seven to 10 years to put a system into place in a commercial basis if it would work which is unclear to us at this time. The rule requires it by 2030 and there’s just no way we can make that.”

“I believe there’s a tipping point that is going to occur in 2028 because all the plants that are announced to close in 2028 — most of these coal plants are tied to specific regulations in the EPA. So, they are going to close. So, you have got between now and 2028 to come up with solutions.”

“The EPA’s new power plant rule will further strain America’s electric grid and wipe out decades of work to build the power generation capacity to keep the lights on across the country, dependably, with the flip of a switch. This proposal, if enacted, would disrupt domestic energy security, force reliable coal power plants to close, and make new natural gas plants almost impossibly difficult to get up and running.” 

“Mandating more electrification while making it harder to produce electricity is a recipe for disaster. The Biden EPA’s new proposed rules for power plants will put Americans at risk of blackouts, energy shortages, and higher prices by shutting down reliable energy sources.” 

“The EPA’s new proposed rules would kill jobs in Wyoming and raise energy costs for families across the country. We can protect the environment and unleash clean, affordable, and reliable American energy at the same time.” 

“Today’s proposal further risks the security and reliability of our country’s electric grid, which could lead to energy shortages and rolling blackouts like those experienced across several states this past winter.”

“This proposal (Carbon Rule) will further strain America’s electric grid and undermine decades of work to reliably keep the lights on across the nation. And it is just the latest instance of EPA failing to prioritize reliable electricity as a fundamental expectation of American consumers. We’re concerned the proposal could disrupt domestic energy security, force critical always available power plants into early retirement, and make new natural gas plants exceedingly difficult to permit, site, and build.”

“With these new proposed rules, the Biden administration continues to wage war not only against U.S. energy companies but also against all the everyday Americans who rely on energy simply to maintain their homes and take care of their families.”

“Forcing power plants to close or adopt costly modifications will further harm electricity reliability and raise energy bills for Americans. If the president doesn’t start encouraging conventional energy alongside renewable development, consumers are going to pay a heavy price.”

“At a time when millions are struggling to fill up their tanks and pay their utility bills, it’s reprehensible that the Biden administration would clamp down even further on domestic energy production, attempt to close down power plants, and kill American energy jobs.”

“EPA’s new powerplant regulations go too far, too fast. Regulations must be grounded in what is technologically feasible and commercially available. Going beyond that, as this regulation does, could threaten electric reliability, and raise energy prices to unsustainable levels, harming the entire economy.”