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.”

“The proposed greenhouse gas rule “would inject additional cost and uncertainty [into the power sector] … by assuming the availability and affordability of unproven technologies. If the rules are adopted, consumers will pay more for a less-reliable system. “Given increasing signs of trouble on the grid, regulators should help stabilize the system, not exacerbate its problems.”

“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.”

 “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.”

“The technology for a non-synchronous type of generation grid is just not there yet. And it’s going to take years for that to advance. And in the meantime, we need a bridge to be able to get to the future. And that bridge is going to be thermal dispatchable generation.”

“It would be wonderful if carbon capture technology could be mature to where you could run coal or gas generating units with carbon capture and actually remove all the carbon and have that benefit. I don’t think the technology is anywhere near being mature yet, but time will tell.”

[On carbon capture technology] “It would be wonderful if carbon capture technology could be mature to where you could run coal or gas generating units with carbon capture and actually remove all the carbon and have that benefit. I don’t think the technology is anywhere near being mature yet, but time will tell.”

“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 think people need to understand the scale of this industry is enormous. So last year, we put 20 gigawatts of solar onto the system. That’s the most we have ever put on in a single year. And that’s only about 2 percent of the capacity of the United States. So even with everything that we have done to speed the development of renewables and so forth, with a static grid, we are on a 50- to 75-year trajectory to replace it. And the grid is not static because we are also trying to electrify transportation.”

“By imposing unworkable deadlines and unproven technologies not commercially available, this latest version of Democrats’ so-called Clean Power Plan poses an existential threat to providers of affordable and reliable American energy.”

“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.” 

“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.”

“With nearly 60% of our nation’s energy generated from natural gas and coal, this (Carbon Rule) will either require deployment of still nascent technologies at an impractical pace or force those plants to shut down entirely. With the many threats to global energy security, that is a grave risk to our economy and to our families. The U.S. cannot afford to shut down more than half of our power generation and grind our economy to a halt.”

“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.”

“Fleet change is not the only challenge we face. Extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. Electric vehicles and electric heating in homes and businesses are also poised to grow, which could exert new pressures on the grid in hours of the day and seasons of the year that rarely posed risks in the past.”

“Renewables also don’t necessarily map to where demand is, unlike fossil fuels, which can be transported and burned near where they’re consumed. That means more transmission lines are needed and building them can take from seven to 15 years.”