Florida is asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject proposed new standards for fossil fuel power plants, saying they are part of unworkable efforts to remake America’s power grid and endanger the public.
“By prioritizing the use of unfounded technologies to force a reduction in readily available generation assets, the agency places the reliability, affordability, and capacity of the nation’s energy supply at risk,” the department said in the comments, addressed to EPA Administrator Michael Regan on Aug. 8.
“This risk is especially concerning given Florida’s geographic position and natural susceptibility to hurricanes and natural disasters.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, now running for president, has criticized the power of unelected federal bureaucrats and has said he'll cut back their power if elected.
He’s been a strong defender specifically of natural gas use, going so far as to pass a permanent sales tax exemption for natural gas stoves which he says the federal government is considering banning.
The EPA hasn’t allowed much time—only 77 days—for “stakeholders” to review and comment on rules that would make sweeping changes, the department said.
“Given this timeline and the complexity of the proposed rule, this comment period is woefully insufficient.”
“It is unclear if the EPA is truly seeking constructive feedback, or if it is attempting to expedite rule adoption to support the ‘net-zero world’ that the World Economic Forum so desires.”
“The American public should not be kept in the dark—in terms of both the lack of scientific evidence in the ’solutions’ the EPA is relying upon and the exorbitant costs that comes along with them,” the department said.
“For these reasons, the department is providing comments to shed light on the risks the rule presents to Floridians.”
Florida already has superior air quality, the department said.
“Florida now has the cleanest air on record and is the most populous state to meet or exceed the EPA benchmarks. The state has accomplished this through ingenuity and smart governance—rather than instituting arbitrary standards.”
A graph in the department’s comments shows that as Florida’s population grew almost 40 percent from 2000 to 2021, its gross domestic product—its economy—rose 140 percent, its vehicle miles traveled grew a little more than 40 percent, but its electricity sales grew only about 20 percent.
Its pollutant emissions during the same period fell sharply.
Nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and volatile organic compounds decreased from 60 to 80 percent, and sulfur dioxide fell more than 90 percent, according to the department’s graph.
The DEP argues that the EPA wants to implement carbon capture and sequestration technologies (CCS) that have yet to be reliably proven.
The rules are contained in the EPA’s proposed regulations establishing new source performance standards for greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants, greenhouse gas emissions guidelines for existing plants, and repealing the Affordable Clean Energy Rule.
In requiring CCS for existing coal plants and large gas turbines, the EPA “relies on demonstration projects that have failed to reliably capture carbon at efficiencies comparable to the levels in the proposed rule (approximately 90 percent capture efficiency).”
And the EPA’s determination to require hundreds of power plants to implement carbon capture and sequestration technologies “within the proposed timelines does not properly account for the scale or complexity of efforts needed to implement these decisions,” the department said.
The EPA relies on a few CCS demonstration projects, which are inadequate to support the sweeping measures, the department said. The projects “have only demonstrated that application of CCS technology is costly, unreliable, and raises significant concerns regarding operational flexibility.”
Such regulations will only steer power companies away from installing CCS-compliant power plants, the department said. They'll either retire plants, thus limiting capacity, or rely on the “hydrogen economy” it accuses the EPA of trying to create with its regulations.
The department finds numerous other faults with the proposed federal regulations.
Its five-year timelines for implementation are far too ambitious, conflicting with state planning processes that won’t be complete until 2026 at the earliest.
The EPA “fails to place grid reliability above the targeted emissions reductions,” the department said.
Hydrogen co-firing—using hydrogen to power gas turbines—hasn’t been adequately demonstrated, nor is hydrogen available at the scale necessary.
Power plant owners would be forced to cut electricity generation and raise prices to avoid violating the regulations.
“At present, Florida has no large hydrogen production facilities, hydrogen pipelines, or hydrogen storage facilities—each of which would be essential to the implementation” of the new regulations, the department said.
Florida also does not have sufficient renewable energy resources to produce the volume of low-greenhouse-gas hydrogen the proposed rule would require, the department said.
With 75 percent of its electricity generated by natural gas, the highest of any state, Florida would need an extraordinary amount of hydrogen and would have to generate most of it in-state.
“By forcing existing plants to reduce generating capacity to meet arbitrary thresholds and tying the hands of states to bring dispatchable facilities online at times of high demand, the proposed rules seek to prioritize a ‘hydrogen economy’ of tomorrow ahead of the needs of consumers today,” the department said.
“Doing so will stifle the energy sector’s ability to meet consumer demands when it matters most, like in the aftermath of a major hurricane or when record high and low temperatures increase capacity needs.
“The concept that emergency response personnel would not tap into all available resources to restore power following mass outages to support emissions thresholds places arbitrary targets above public safety and welfare.”
The department alleges the EPA’s proposed rules violate the Administrative Procedures Act, are arbitrary and capricious, and “go well beyond the bounds of congressionally authorized agency discretion.”
“This is nothing more than another instance of the EPA attempting to usurp Congressional authority under the guise of discretion.”
