Reuters The Biden administration’s new restrictions on power plant emissions set up a final test for one of the most controversial corners of climate tech: carbon capture and sequestration. The rules require existing coal-fired power plants to curb their CO2 emissions by 90% if they plan to operate beyond 2039, and also require steep emissions cuts from any new gas-fired power plants. The rules essentially force a choice on investors in coal plants: Is it more cost-effective to retire the plants early and replace them with a lower-carbon option, or retrofit the plant with carbon capture? Numerous attempts over the last decade to fit CCS onto a coal plant have failed. Currently, only one such plant exists in the US, and its finances work because the captured CO2 is sold to facilitate oil drilling, limiting the project’s climate benefit. Tax incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act should make the next generation of CCS attempts more viable, but there are still obstacles in building out the infrastructure to transport and bury all that CO2. Aniruddha Sharma, CEO of the CCS company Carbon Clean, said while the technology can pencil out for smaller factories with few alternate decarbonization options, “infrastructure upgrades may not make sense” for larger, older coal plants, which will also face costs from other new EPA restrictions on mercury and other pollutants. The upshot is that the next few years will determine whether “clean coal” can actually exist. The new rules are also a test of the impact and durability of emissions-targeting regulations (i.e., sticks), in an era when most climate policymakers have shifted focus to subsidies and industrial policy (i.e., carrots). They are certain to face an avalanche of lawsuits, and would probably be scrapped on Donald Trump’s first day in the White House if re-elected. Changes to grid permitting, rather than EPA regulation, “will determine the power industry’s emissions trajectories into the 2030s,” Devin Hartman, director of energy and environmental policy at the conservative-leaning R Street Institute, wrote this week. |