EPA Administrator Michael Regan on Undoing the Toxic Legacy of U.S. Power Plants

The Environmental Protection Agency has released new rules today it intended to crack down on pollution from power plants. It forces existing coal-fired power plants and newly built gas plants to capture almost all of their planet-warming carbon dioxide emissions. The agency also set new limits on mercury emissions, water pollution and coal ash from power plants.

Environmental and health advocates, however, are still waiting for the EPA to finalize rules for existing gas-fired power plants, which are the biggest source of electricity in the USA. On the edge spoke with Regan about what’s next — from the impending presidential election to what technologies could be used to clean up the power grid and how to get communities more involved in the process.

This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

The US generates more electricity from gas than any other energy source. But the EPA’s new rules for power plant emissions do not include current gas-fired power plants.

The EPA says it is delaying its decision to strengthen those rules, but that risks leaving the policy to another Trump administration. What is so important that it is worth slowing down and taking a risk?

I think it’s a universal vision shared not only by EPA, but by the environmental justice community, the environmental community, as well as industry. In addition to just looking at carbon reductions, the environmental justice community, the environmental community, has also asked us to also look at reducing toxic pollution.

We wanted to listen to our stakeholders, recognizing that we all understand the sense of urgency. But also embracing the fact that we could do better. We can be more comprehensive. We can assure you that there were control technologies considered other than carbon capture and storage, which is what the environmental justice community has asked us to do. And we also think that this is a more strategic and impactful way of looking at the existing gas universe in its entirety. Therefore, we believe that, whilst recognizing the sense of urgency, there is collectively an opportunity to further reduce pollution from existing gas sources.

How can you achieve these additional pollution reductions? How might the new rule for existing gas plants be different from what the EPA initially proposed last year?

We are in the process of evaluating different combinations of control technologies – looking at reliance on renewable energy and battery storage. We are strongly analyzing and evaluating best management practices to reduce pollution. Listen, the bottom line is that many of these existing gas plants reside in close proximity to communities that have been disproportionately impacted for a long time. And so they want a more thoughtful and inclusive process about different types of approaches to reducing climate pollutants and toxic pollution. And they also want to better understand CCS technology – how all of these things will also have a direct impact on their communities. So with this extended deadline, we are maximizing the opportunity to be transparent, to take a closer look at all available options to reduce not only carbon but also toxic pollution, and to explain to communities the choices we are making and the global impact it will have on its communities.

The Supreme Court’s decision on West Virginia v. EPA last June, essentially said that the EPA cannot regulate greenhouse gas emissions in a way that determines which energy sources the US uses. What was the impact of this decision on combating climate change and the health effects resulting from pollution from power plants?

Let me just say that I feel strongly that we are following the science and following the law. In fact, we measured twice and are cutting once. We recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled on previous cases. The truth is that we have learned from the results of previous court cases and are applying that knowledge in the future. The four separate standards that we are issuing today are done in a very strategic way, consistent with the law and with the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and also all of our cleanup statutes.

Today, we are defining this set of standards so that the industry has enough time to prepare for investment and strategic planning in a way that meets these rules in a very cost-effective way. We know that, based on our analysis and evaluation, this does not undermine reliability or inflate prices, and so we feel very good about it. It took us a while, and today is a really important day for the Biden administration.

I spoke to a woman last night from Newark, New Jersey. She lives in a neighborhood with three power plants within a four-square-mile radius. She says they are counting on you, that there are real lives at stake.

Her name is Maria López-Nuñez. She wants the EPA to consider the cumulative impacts of multiple industrial facilities and multiple pollutants – not just carbon dioxide – that impact the community. Is that something you’re going to do with this new rule about power plants?

This is something we are doing. When we look at these four rules, we are fighting climate pollution. We are ensuring that wastewater discharged by the various plants in our neighborhood is not released into rivers and streams. We are ensuring that the mercury from this coal does not bioaccumulate in fish that people in the neighborhood may want to use for recreational purposes. The coal ash that has been stored in your communities in these unlined pits that are saturating the groundwater and drinking water, we are putting an end to that. Today, we’re directly addressing the concerns we’ve heard from her and others in communities across the country. This is a very comprehensive approach. It is an approach designed to combat pollution from our energy sector. And again, it’s a smart approach that doesn’t compromise reliability or cost.

What about the future rule for existing gas plants?

One of the reasons we’re taking longer is that as we address existing gas plants, we look at carbon, we look at nitrogen oxides, and we look at some of the toxins that come from these plants. So, yes, we are looking at a number of pollutants that we can control by taking a little more time, as the community – the environmental justice community and the environmental community – have asked us to do.

Maria and other advocates I spoke with are also concerned about carbon capture. This does not eliminate other types of pollution and prolongs dependence on fossil fuels, they say. Do you think the new rule for existing gas plants should still rely on carbon capture?

We are listening to Maria and others, which is why we are taking this second step. That’s why we’re going through a very transparent process. We are listening to the public. And we will take this journey together to ensure that the set of options that we consider viable for existing sources takes into account the concerns that have been raised by the environmental community and the environmental justice community. We are listening and we hear Maria and her companions loud and clear.

So far, the EPA has only opened one non-regulatory summary to gather information about a new emissions rule for existing gas plants, which appears not to be linked to any specific regulation. Can you explain why this is a non-regulatory document and what the next steps are to reach a final rule for existing plants? Is there any chance this rule will be approved before the election?

The process is ongoing and I wouldn’t give too much importance to the first step. There are several steps that are part of any regulatory process, and I can assure you that the actions we take to control carbon pollution and toxic pollution from existing gas sources will go through the appropriate process that can withstand legal challenges, but also follow the science and follow the law.

I’ve heard you speak so passionately over the years about environmental justice and ending the legacy of fossil fuels that disproportionately pollute communities of color and low-income neighborhoods. How do you reconcile this with the fact that the US still produces record amounts of oil and gas?

I think it’s fair to say that President Biden has set the agenda. Leadership starts at the top, and he is the president who said at least twice during his State of the Union address that environmental justice is a top priority for all of us. It goes without saying that for too long, low-income communities of color and tribal communities have been disproportionately affected by pollution from the energy sector and chemical sector. What we committed to is that we would apply our regulations equally under the law to protect everyone in this country, especially those who are disproportionately affected or most vulnerable.

I took this Journey to Justice tour across the country, starting in the Southeastern United States. When we spend time with families who have been affected by cancer for generations, when we see how close some of these homes are to chemical plants and coal ash dump sites, we quickly realize that there are things we can do, that we should do, that the president asked us to do it. That’s exactly what this EPA is doing.