The same EPA that is stocking up on guns and ammunition is now undermining America's electric grid with new environmental standards, leaving four major grid operators troubled.
The Environmental Protection Agency recently shared its latest climate proposal, which would require power plants to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. This would mean adopting new climate technologies like carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) and hydrogen blending in order to bring down their greenhouse gas emissions output.
Coal-fired power plants remain crucial to the reliability of the electric grid. While they have been somewhat replaced by renewable energy sources like solar and wind, they can't be completely retired, as controversial EPA modeling suggests.
The Center for the American Experiment (CAE) filed comments this week in response to the proposal, writing that the EPA's capacity accreditations are unrealistically high and would be unable to keep the lights on.
Four regional grid operators (PJM, MISO, ERCOT & SPP) – which oversee half of the U.S. population's electricity – also expressed their concerns. In a joint statement, the market operators warn that the challenges and risks to grid reliability associated with a diminishing amount of dispatchable generating capacity could be severely exacerbated if the EPA's proposed rule is adopted.
The CAE predicts that the new rules would spark rolling blackouts, affecting one in every five homes.
"EPA is proposing rules that will fundamentally transform the entire U.S. electric grid, which is the most critical infrastructure in the nation," writes the CAE. "The blackouts observed in our modeling would be economically devastating."
To avert the blackouts would require a significant increase in installed generating capacity, costing ratepayers an additional $246 billion through 2055, roughly $7.7 billion annually.
The EPA is setting the nation's power grid up for failure. When regional operators are publicly expressing their concerns, the complications are serious.
But will the EPA listen?
The four grid operators noted that the EPA's short Comment Period and the lack of dialogue leading up to the Proposed Rule have made it difficult to conduct a full analysis of the impacts. Sounds typical of government – especially an executive agency that has no obligation to listen to the American people.
SEE ALSO: Alarming: EPA stocking up on ammo, guns & staff as budget skyrockets
"Hopefully, EPA heeds their warning," urges the CAE.
Do federal agencies ever heed their warnings? If they did, the Convention of States movement would not be necessary.
But as repeatedly shown, the government ignores the people and conducts business in an irresponsible, reckless manner. When it comes to the financial and infrastructure burden the EPA could place on Americans, it's easy to see why government agencies must be reined in.
Article V gives us the power to take action before it's too late. Support the work of Convention of States by adding your name to the petition below.
