News | Headlines
New EPA rules likely to be challenged
USA Emissions control
The US Environmental Protection Agency on 25 April finalised new regulations targeting pollution from power plants, including a landmark rule that requires sweeping reductions in carbon emissions from existing coal and new gas plants to combat climate change. The move is expected to usher in major legal challenges.
The new Rules
The EPAs require drastic cuts in carbon pollution from power plants and update long-standing measures to reduce mercury and toxic air pollutants, clean up wastewater and reduce coal ash discharges. The power plant emissions Rule mandates that many new gas and existing coal plants reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2032. That could require the US power industry to install billions of dollars worth of emissions control technologies or shut down the most polluting facilities operating today.
The new plant emissions Rule does not directly require a shift from fossil fuels. Legal experts say it attempts to make use of a more traditional reading of the agency’s power in the Clean Air Act by favouring technologies like carbon capture and sequestration that can be installed at the power plants themselves. The EPA says the most stringent reductions can be achieved through the installation of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technology.
The EPA projects the emissions rule will cut
1.38 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through to 2047.
Previous challenges
The new carbon emissions regulations come nearly two years after the US Supreme Court struck down a previous power plant emissions rule developed during the Obama administration, which sought to spur a shift from coal to cleaner energy sources. In its 6-3 ruling in ‘West Virginia v EPA’ the Supreme Court found that the Clean Air Act did not expressly authorise the EPA to require electricity generators to shift from fossil fuels to energy sources like wind or solar that emit less carbon dioxide.
The decision invoked the ‘major questions’ legal doctrine, which requires regulatory agencies to possess explicit congressional authorisation before they can take consequential actions on issues of far-reaching importance and societal impact.
New challenges
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrissey has promised to challenge the power plant emissions rule in court. Last year, Morrissey led a group of Republican attorneys general who complained that the rule sets ‘unrealistic’ and expensive standards that go well beyond the EPA’s legal authority. The states said the rules would ‘kill jobs, raise energy prices, and hurt energy reliability.’ The National Rural Electric Co-operative Association has also filed a lawsuit challenging the rules. NRECA CEO Jim Matheson said: ‘EPA’s
power plant rule is unlawful, unreasonable and unachievable. It exceeds EPA’s authority and poses an immediate threat to the American electric grid.’
US Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, a republican who sits on the Senate environment committee, separately said that she would introduce a resolution to overturn the rules.
Business and electric utility groups including the US Chamber of Commerce and the Edison Electric Institute have said the Rule relies too heavily on carbon-quelling technologies that have not been deployed at scale and face significant regulatory hurdles. They also argued that installing capture and sequestration systems would require building pipelines and emissions storage facilities outside the power plants themselves.
Likely arguments
Republican-led states and industry groups are likely to claim in any lawsuit that the emissions rule far exceeds the EPA’s legal authority, triggers the major questions doctrine and violates administrative law. The other pollution rules announced on 25 April are also likely to be targeted in court.
Legal experts say the EPA’s decision to trim the final carbon emissions rule from an earlier proposal – including by removing hydrogen as a ‘best system of emissions reduction,’ and removing requirements for existing gas plants – may make the rule somewhat easier to defend but will not stop the coming courtroom barrage.
Boost for Canada’s CANDU technology Canada Nuclear power
Candu Energy, an AtkinsRéalis company, has signed a memorandum of understanding with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL), a federal Crown corporation, and Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL), which manages and operates Canada’s premier nuclear science and technology organisation for AECL, to co-operate on the upgrading and production of heavy water for the commissioning and operation of new Candu nuclear reactors in Canada.
“This collaboration among important stakeholders in the Canadian nuclear sector sets the stage for Canada to lead the global heavy water market, solidifying its role as a key player in the energy transition,” commented Ian L. Edwards, president and CEO, AtkinsRéalis. “With Candu reactors operating across four continents, a global
4 | May 2024 |
www.modernpowersystems.com
nuclear new build market with expected demand in excess of 1000 new reactors, a strong Candu reactor refurbishment market, and the introduction of the new Candu Monark 1000 MW reactor in addition to the existing Enhanced Candu 6, this MoU could not have come at a better time.” The MOU brings together AtkinsRéalis’ nuclear and industrial capabilities in Canada as the licensee of Candu technology, as well as AECL, owners of the intellectual property, and other heavy water production technologies, and CNL, a prominent company with extensive experience in heavy water technologies. The objective is to evaluate options and select cost efficient, environmentally responsible, and viable heavy-water production technologies, which could include the establishment of industrial scale heavy-water production facilities to
support the deployment of a new fleet of Candu reactors.
Heavy water is used as a moderator and coolant in Candu reactors. It is a differentiating factor in nuclear reactor design that is said to allow the technology to be very safe, but also allows the reactor to utilise unenriched uranium as its fuel source; something no other modern nuclear reactor can do. However, heavy water has not been produced in Canada for over 25 years, and there are currently no large industrial scale heavy water production capabilities in the Western world that will meet the supply needed for a new fleet of reactors. This is especially true as Canada has ambitious nuclear build out plans, with the country being one of many to have committed to tripling nuclear output by 2050 and the province of Ontario alone having an estimated future need for 18 GW of new nuclear power by 2050.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41
