This group brings together the best thinkers on energy and climate. Join us for smart, insightful posts and conversations about where the energy industry is and where it is going.


Don't Toss Out the Good Electricity with the Bad

Kyle Aarons's picture
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions

Kyle Aarons is a former Senior Fellow at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES). While at C2ES, Mr. Aarons focused on state and regional efforts to address climate change and promote...

  • Member since 2018
  • 3 items added with 2,159 views
  • Sep 10, 2014

plant emissions and waste

One way to reduce power plant carbon emissions is to reduce the demand for electricity. Encouraging customer energy efficiency is one of the building blocks underpinning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Power Plan. But the plan does not distinguish among uses of electricity. That means, without further options, the Clean Power Plan could inadvertently discourage states from deploying electric vehicles (EVs), electric mass transit, and other technologies that use electricity instead of a dirtier fuel.

In all but very coal-heavy regions, using electricity as a transportation fuel, especially in mass transit applications, results in the emission of far less carbon dioxide than burning gasoline. In industry, carbon emissions can be cut by using electric conveyance systems instead of diesel- or propane-fueled forklifts and electric arc furnaces instead of coal boilers.

Under the proposed power plant rules, new uses of electricity would be discouraged regardless of whether a state pursues a rate-based target (pounds of emissions per unit of electricity produced) or a mass-based target (tons of emissions per year).

EPA has a few options to make sure regulations for power plants would not discourage uses of electricity that result in less carbon emissions overall.

One solution would be for EPA to allow states to credit providers of carbon-cutting electricity to ensure some uses of electricity are not discouraged. Emissions caused by EV fueling, for example, would still count against a state’s Clean Power Plan carbon budget, but a state could offset this by issuing credits for the avoided gasoline emissions. However, the mechanism for this is difficult to envision since state implementation of the Clean Power Plan legally must focus on the power sector, while much of the carbon-cutting potential of electricity fuel switching comes from other sectors, like transportation.

A much simpler solution would be for EPA to let states remove the power plant emissions associated with EVs from the calculation of their total emissions for Clean Power Plan compliance purposes. This could be justified by classifying electricity used to charge EVs as being part of the transportation sector rather than the power sector. As such, the emissions associated with this electricity would fall outside of what a state is responsible for under the Clean Power Plan. A similar approach could be used for new electricity demand that reduces emissions in the industrial sector, meaning the Clean Power Plan would not stand in the way of a state encouraging carbon-cutting uses of electricity throughout the economy.

Power plants are responsible for more than a third of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, making it the No. 1 source, but transportation comes in a close No. 2, and industry is No. 3.

EPA has been receptive to ideas to improve its power plant proposal, and the public comment period remains open until October 16. There should be ample opportunity for C2ES and other stakeholders to work with EPA to address this issue and ensure EVs and other climate-friendly uses of electricity are not discouraged.

Photo Credit: Electricity Generation and Waste/shutterstock

Kyle Aarons's picture
Thank Kyle for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Engineer- Poet's picture
Engineer- Poet on Sep 10, 2014

That’s fascinating.  It’s another “gotcha” in the EPA plan (like the 5.8% capacity credit for existing nuclear plants) which serves to either entrench the status quo ante or favor a particular sector.

It looks like my draft of comments to the EPA need another revision… and will be the better for it.

Robert Bernal's picture
Robert Bernal on Sep 10, 2014

Energy innovation requires that we seek the most efficient end use applications, lest we do not conserve at all. I totally agree that electric vehicles are the best way to reduce emissions at the gobal transport level, however, there is not nearly enough promotion of passive solar concepts. Sunlight to heat via black paint and insulation, and mass walls shadowed by trees, etc for cooling, practiced globally would eliminate perhaps as much power demand as electric cars would save. Of course, the fossil fuel companies might not like that idea.

The supply side needs to consider what is the source with the heighest EROEI and the type of storage with the heighest ESOI, if we are to even consider the idea of ditching advanced nuclear or fossil fuels. 

Will today’s RE concepts be able to sustain transition from fossil fuels within the constraints of the energy math?

Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »