Under the agreement, B&W has received limited notice to proceed (LNTP) for the project. Notice to proceed for the full contract is expected in the fourth quarter of 2024, the company said.

B&W will convert the currently unspecified plant’s two coal-fired boilers – totaling more than 1,000 MW – to use natural gas fuel. B&W’s full scope would include the design and installation of new burners, air systems, fans and other equipment necessary to implement the fuel switch.

“Utilities across North America and throughout the world are evaluating options to extend the life of their thermal power generating assets,” said Chris Riker, Senior Vice President, B&W Thermal. “Replacing coal or oil with cleaner-burning fuels like natural gas, biofuels or hydrogen is often a cost-effective way for plant owners to lower emissions while maintaining reliable power generation capacity.”

Babcock & Wilcox said it will begin engineering and design work under the LNTP immediately with support from its affiliate, FPS. Babcock & Wilcox Construction will perform the construction portion of the project under an intercompany agreement when a full notice to proceed is received.  

Consumers had sought to amend its long-running agreement with National Energy of Lincoln in northeast Michigan, proposing early termination of a previous amendment that had extended the PPA
for the plant’s 18 MW of electricity to 2027. The latest proposed amendment would have resulted in closure of the plant on May 31, 2024.

In June 2023 Consumers applied for a similar early termination of a PPA with Cogeneration Michigan Associates Limited Partnership’s Cadillac Plant. The new exit date would also be May 31, 2024, from July 2028.

In both cases, Consumers Energy had argued the early terminations provide several benefits, such as “an
expected reduction in cost, which will be passed on to PSCR [power supply cost recovery] customers…”.

But commissioners raised concerns about these claimed potential savings since Consumers “would turn to volatile electricity markets to replace some of the energy output and capacity lost with the shutdown of the plants.”

“The Commission found relying on unpredictable markets for replacement supply outside of a comprehensive Integrated Resource Planning process in this manner entailed an unacceptable level of risk,” MPSC said in a statement.

Consumers had proposed replacing the capacity from the Lincoln biomass plant with a 33.6 MW solar facility and the Cadillac Plant with a 67 MW solar facility. However, the utility had itself noted in testimony that given their non-dispatchable profiles, the two solar facilities would not be able to replace all the electric capacity from the biomass plants without supplemental electricity purchases.

Commissioners said that was concerning given the Midwest Independent System Operator (MISO) has warned of tightening supplies.

Regulators greenlight solar and storage projects

The Commission also approved several renewable energy and storage projects called for in the long-range integrated resource plans of two Michigan electric utilities.

Commissioners approved DTE Energy’s application to construct a 220 MW/800 MWh lithium-ion battery storage facility at the site of the former Trenton Channel coal-fired plant in Wayne County. The battery storage project is expected to cost $460 million.

The application to build the battery facility was approved the same day DTE demolished two smokestacks at Trenton Channel.

Retired in 2022, the plant was originally built to address the needs of an expanding economy post World War I and was the fourth major power plant Detroit Edison put into operation during the 1920’s. The coal-fired plant began operating in 1924.

The plant had six turbine generators with 13 coal-fired boilers. The sixth and last turbine generator arrived by 1929. At that time, Trenton Channel was the largest project Detroit Edison had undertaken. At one point, with the expansion of the plant in 1950, the facility generated 1,060 MW of energy.

At its retirement, Trenton Channel generated 535 MW.

Beyond the actions related to the Trenton Channel site, MPSC on Friday approved Consumers Energy’s application for approval of a PPA between the utility and Freshwater Solar Project, a 300 MW solar facility in Montcalm County, with a total lifetime cost of $715.7 million.

Siemens Energy North America President Rich Voorberg was optimistic and upbeat as he sat down to speak with us at POWERGEN International back in January.

Voorberg has attended POWERGEN for nearly 30 years but still buzzes about walking the show floor or learning the latest technologies.

“It’s about working together,” said Voorberg, “and it’s about learning from each other.”

This kind of collaboration is crucial as the power sector faces the pressures of net-zero carbon goals and unprecedented load growth.

Big changes are happening already. A growing number of utilities and power generation owners have committed to cut carbon emissions 80% by 2030.

The U.S. bulk power system is becoming more renewables-heavy, thanks largely to coal-fired plant retirements and huge growth from utility-scale solar. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) is projecting that renewables’ share of electricity will increase three percent in just one year, from 22% in 2023 to nearly 25% in 2024.

Demand for power is also exploding. Many utilities are increasing their load forecasts, in no small part from new manufacturing and the rise of energy-intensive data centers using AI. Duke Energy Carolinas, for example, recently told regulators its current projected peak demand growth by 2030 is approximately eight times what it projected in the company’s 2022 Carbon Plan.

Voorberg said an all of the above approach is needed in the face of these challenges. This includes more solar, wind and battery installations, but also advancements in clean firm power technologies like hydrogen and small modular reactors, he said.

Conventional power sources will still be needed “for the foreseeable future,” Voorberg said.

The gas turbine remains the workhorse of power generation, and previous efforts have been aimed at extending time between outages and the life of equipment. Now, the focus turns to burning cleaner fuels like hydrogen, which is no longer simply a hypothetical situation.

Voorberg pointed to a hydrogen-blending test at Constellation’ Hillabee Generating Station, a 753 MW natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) in central Alabama. Constellation blended 38 percent hydrogen by volume, with the demonstration occurring on a Siemens Energy SGT6-6000G gas turbine.

Researchers said only “minor modifications” were required for the blending test. Constellation said it added an inlet for the hydrogen to be blended, a control valve and calibrated instrument to measure fuel flow.

But Voorberg acknowledged that long-term trial runs are needed to see how parts on the backend are truly affected.

“We’ve theoretically got it,” he said. “But we’ve got to get these machines running and prove it out to ourselves over a longer and longer period of time.”

But at the end of the day, it’s about the business case.

Tax credits and other incentives have been established to support scaling up the production, transportation, storage and end-use of clean hydrogen. Siemens Energy itself opened a gigawatt-scale electrolyzer production facility in Berlin last year.

Establishing a functioning hydrogen economy in the U.S. is not without its headwinds. It’s a microcosm of the greater challenge of getting to net-zero by 2050 and the reality that we might not yet have all the tools commercially available to get there.

That’s why Siemens Energy spends more than $1 billion annually in R&D, aimed at bringing newer, cleaner innovations to market.

“It’s going to be difficult, and it’s going to really push out our engineers,” said Voorberg. “We believe only half of the technology exists today in a commercial mandate to get to 2050.”

All the more reason it takes a village to reach net-zero.

A handful of Democratic legislators are opposed to a plan to build a natural gas power plant in Chesterfield, a proposal that Virginia’s largest utility said will ensure electric grid reliability during expected surges in power demands over the next 15 to 25 years.

Seven delegates and two senators representing the greater Richmond area signed a statement Wednesday issued by the office of Sen. Ghazala Hashmi, D-Richmond. The project proposal “runs counter to the measures the Commonwealth has taken recently to lower carbon emissions and to diversify energy production and storage,” it reads.

In 2020, the Democratic-majority General Assembly passed the Virginia Clean Economy Act, a policy that requires the state’s electric grid to decarbonize by 2045 by transitioning to renewable energy sources and retiring fossil fuel generation sources. 

That same year, Virginia passed the Environmental Justice Act, which requires the state to promote “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of every person, regardless of race, color, national origin, income, faith, or disability” when developing, implementing or enacting environmental laws, regulations and policies.

The legislators’ opposition to the Chesterfield plant cites projections from Dominion’s long-term planning documents that say the utility’s carbon emissions would increase. The utility produced 21.8 million metric tons in 2021 and estimated it would emit 36 to 43.8 million metric tons by 2048. The proposed 1,000 megawatt Chesterfield plant, which would be sited next to the utility’s now-closed coal-fired plant, is included in Dominion’s estimates. 

About 20,000 people live within a three-mile radius of the proposed plant; 36% of them are low-income, and about 48% are people of color, according to information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency included in the lawmakers’ statement.

The opposing legislators also question the cost of the project, which was $600 million in a 2019 iteration of the proposal, but hasn’t been disclosed in the current plan. Dominion’s customers would bear those costs.

“With the VCEA stipulation that most polluting plants be shut down by 2045, the construction of a new and costly power plant makes little fiscal sense,” the statement reads. 

Dominion proposed the natural gas plant last summer as part of its non-binding, long-term planning document, called an Integrated Resource Plan, as a way to meet an expected increase in electric grid load growth, largely due to data center development in the state, more electric vehicle use and efforts to boost homes’ energy efficiency. This type of facility is commonly referred to as a “peaker plant,” because of its intended use during periods of peak demand for electricity.

A challenge of relying solely on renewable technologies like wind and solar during the energy transition is that they’re limited to producing electricity on an intermittent basis, when the sun is shining and the wind is blowing. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission member Mark Christie, a former member of the State Corporation Commission that regulates Dominion, echoed that concern in remarks last May.

When it comes to grid reliability,, “the problem generally is not the addition of intermittent resources — primarily wind and solar — but the far too rapid subtraction of dispatchable resources, especially coal and gas.”

About 95% of the energy generation sources in Dominion’s IRP is from carbon-free sources, including 2,600 megawatts from offshore wind, about 800 megawatts a year from solar and long-duration energy storage devices, which can provide power for over 100 hours instead of the traditional four-hour period, and small modular nuclear reactors, though they are largely unproven at the commercial level. The remaining 5% of new generation sources comes from the Chesterfield plant.

“Renewables alone cannot keep our customers’ power on 24/7, especially with power demand nearly doubling over the coming decades,” said Dominion spokesman Jeremy Slayton. “That is why we need an all-of-the-above, balanced approach that advances the clean-energy transition, but without sacrificing on reliability.” 

Still, community members have joined lawmakers in raising concerns about the planned power plant and some are calling for local action against it.

“Given the significant potential for harm to the community, we urge the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors to deny Dominion Energy’s zoning application to move forward with the gas plant,” said Aliya Farooq, a founding member of the group Friends of Chesterfield County that formed last year to oppose the proposed plant.

The project still needs approvals from the Department of Environmental Quality for its air permit, Chesterfield County for its land use permit and the SCC for its Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. If all of these are acquired, construction of the plant would begin in 2026 and it’s slated to become operational by the end of 2028.

Virginia Mercury is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Virginia Mercury maintains editorial independence.

SCRANTON, Pa. (AP) — Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro unveiled a plan Wednesday to fight climate change, saying he will back legislation to make power plant owners in the nation’s third-biggest energy-producing state pay for their greenhouse gas emissions and require utilities to buy more electricity from renewable sources.

Such legislation would make Pennsylvania the first major fossil fuel-producing state to adopt a carbon-pricing program. But it is drawing fierce opposition from business interests wary of paying more for power and will face long odds in a Legislature protective of the state’s natural gas industry.

Shapiro’s proposal comes as environmentalists are pressuring him to do more to fight climate change in the nation’s No. 2 gas-producing state and as the state’s highest court considers a challenge to his predecessor’s plan to adopt a carbon-pricing program. It also comes after many of the state’s biggest power polluters, coal-fired plants, have shut down or converted to gas.

At a news conference in Scranton, nicknamed the “Electric City,” Shapiro said his plan will make Pennsylvania competitive in a clean energy economy, improve electricity reliability, cut greenhouse gas emissions and lower electricity bills.

It is long past time for lawmakers to act, he said.

“If they choose to do nothing, they’re choosing to be less competitive in an environment that demands us to bring excellence to the table every single day,” Shapiro said. “They’re choosing to fall behind if they choose to do nothing.”

Under Shapiro’s plan, Pennsylvania would create its own standalone carbon-pricing program, with most of the money paid by polluting power plants — 70% — going to lower consumer electric bills. No one will pay more for electricity and many will pay less, Shapiro said.

Meanwhile, utilities would be required to buy 50% of their electricity from sources that are mostly carbon-free by 2035, up from the state’s current requirement of 18%.

Currently, about 60% of the state’s electricity comes from natural gas-fired power plants, and the 50% renewables requirement could hurt demand for electricity from those plants. Another third of Pennsylvania’s electricity is from nuclear plants — which are not included in the 50% renewables requirement — and the rest from coal and renewables.

Republicans who control the state Senate have pushed to open greater opportunities for natural gas production in Pennsylvania, and have warned that carbon-pricing could raise electricity bills, fray the electricity grid, hurt in-state energy producers and drive new power generation to other states.

“Families are feeling the strain of inflation and increased household expenses, which must be a chief concern when implementing any changes to energy policy,” Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, R-Indiana, said in a statement Wednesday.

Shapiro’s administration did not provide many details of his strategy Wednesday, including how much it would reduce greenhouse gases, how much money power plants would pay or how it would affect the average household electric bill.

Patrick Cicero, Pennsylvania’s consumer advocate, said the amount of savings on electric bills will depend on usage — large industrial customers would see more and low-income households would get “significant reductions” because of a planned expansion of the state’s energy-assistance program.

For the average household, “it’s not going to be much,” Cicero said, “but it’s not costing households more. That’s a win-win.”

Neighboring Maryland, New Jersey and New York have set requirements to draw 50% or more of their electricity from renewables by 2030, prompting warnings that Pennsylvania risks falling behind in a clean energy economy.

Robert Bair, president of the Pennsylvania State Building and Construction Trades, whose members work on power plants, refineries and pipelines, said Pennsylvania energy policy must protect workers in the coal and gas industries. But he also said Pennsylvania will lose clean energy jobs to other states if it does nothing.

Heavy energy users and coal-industry businesses slammed Shapiro’s “energy tax” as posing a damaging blow to industries and a fatal blow to the state’s few remaining coal-fired power plants.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents Pennsylvania’s enormous natural gas industry, was more circumspect. The most pressing challenge is ensuring the electric grid is stable and reliable, said Dave Callahan, the group’s president.

Despite the lack of details, Shapiro’s plan drew statements of support from renewable energy trade associations and environmental advocates.

“Even what the governor has proposed is not enough to meet the needs of addressing the climate crisis, but it’s a huge step forward from where Pennsylvania is now,” said Alex Bomstein, executive director of the Clean Air Council.

Meanwhile, environmental advocates worry about abandoning the plan produced by Shapiro’s predecessor, former Gov. Tom Wolf.

For the time being, a state court has blocked Wolf’s regulation that authorizes Pennsylvania to join the multistate Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which imposes a price and declining cap on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.

As a candidate for governor, Shapiro had distanced himself from Wolf’s plan — although critics said Shapiro’s plan is similar — and Shapiro wouldn’t say Wednesday whether he’d enforce Pennsylvania’s participation in the regional consortium should the courts uphold it and the Legislature do nothing.

“I’m focused on getting these things passed,” Shapiro said.

Austin Mayor Kirk Watson last month expressed concern that the city’s publicly-owned utility wasn’t planning a quick enough exit from Fayette, a three-unit, approximately 1,640 MW plant near La Grange, Texas. The plant is co-owned by Austin and the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA).

Watson had said he wanted Austin out of the Fayette Plant no later than January 2029.

But this week Austin Energy General Manager Bob Kahn told Austin city councilmembers that the utility would be pausing efforts to revise the city’s 2030 climate plan “to more thoroughly analyze generation resources and demand-side measures.”

“Significant proposed changes to the 2030 Plan contemplated by both Austin Energy and the [Electric Utility Commission] require us to further collaborate on how to achieve a carbon-free future,” Kahn said in a memo to elected officials.

Kahn said Austin Energy would be examining whether the city should stick with a mid-course 2030 update or if a 2035 benchmark would better align generation portfolio goals.

“Building new generation, whether renewable or conventional technology, requires years of planning and development work before the electricity source is operational,” reads the memo.

Kahn said Austin would also continue talks with LCRA to reach an exit of Austin Energy’s portion of the Fayette Power Project in a way that eliminates the operation of Austin Energy’s full ownership share.

Among other objectives, Austin Energy would explore the market potential of customer demand-side programs, release Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for various energy sources and further collaborate with stakeholders.

Kahn said Austin Energy would issue RFPs to gather more data around carbon-free generation technologies, including wind, solar, geothermal and hydrogen fuel cells. He said the utility would also be issuing RFPs pertaining to battery storage and “flexible-fuel generation.”

Austin’s energy is 70% carbon-free. The Fayette Power Project is Austin’s single biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, representing three-quarters of Austin Energy’s emissions and about a quarter of Austin’s overall emissions, according to Mayor Watson.

Austin has co-owned the coal-fired plant with the Lower Colorado River Authority since 1979. Fayette Power Project Units 1 and 2 came online in 1979 and 1980, respectively. Unit 3 came online in 1988.

“As a partner in [Fayette Power Project], the city of Austin must meet its contractual obligations related to the plant,” said a spokesperson with LCRA. “We value our years-long partnership and look forward to working with the city of Austin in the future and hearing any proposal the city may bring forward.”

She added: “LCRA intends to continue operating the Fayette Power Project as long as it continues to provide reliable, cost-effective power.”

These states include: Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming and Wisconsin. 

Notably, TerraPower plans to build its Natrium reactor near a retiring coal plant in Kemmerer, Wyoming.

A 2022 DOE report found that more than 300 existing and retired coal power plant sites could convert to nuclear, dramatically increasing dispatchable, carbon-free energy as the country strives to meet its net-zero emissions goal by 2050. The department said each plant could match the size of the site being converted and help increase nuclear capacity by more than 250 GW — nearly tripling its current capacity of 95 GW. 

The DOE report also found that new nuclear plants could save up to 35% on construction costs depending on how much of the existing site assets could be repurposed from retired coal power plants. These assets include the existing land, the coal plant’s electrical equipment (transmission connection, switchyard, etc.) and civil infrastructure, such as roads and buildings.

DOE’s Gateway for Accelerated Innovation in Nuclear (GAIN) is conducting three feasibility studies to assess different aspects of repurposing coal power plant sites with nuclear power. 

TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — New Jersey lawmakers wanted to ask voters whether to ban new fossil fuel-fired power plants.

And then they added a loophole big enough to drive a fleet of oil trucks through.

A state Senate committee on Monday advanced a bill that would authorize a public referendum on amending the state’s Constitution to ban construction of new power plants that burn natural gas or other fossil fuels.

But the measure was changed to allow the construction of such plants if they are to be primarily used as emergency backup power sources.

The so-called “peaker” plants would operate only sporadically, including in times of emergency or when the power grid is experiencing stress.

Scientists say the burning of natural gas and other fossil fuels is one of the leading causes of climate change.

Sen. Bob Smith, chairman of the environment and energy committee, began by talking about the urgent need to address climate change.

“We have just gone through the hottest year in human history,” he said. “Texas is currently burning down. Two years ago we had New Jersey citizens dying from (Tropical Storm ) Ida. We are in big, bad, serious trouble.”

But the bill was being amended to exempt backup power plants from the ban. Such proposals are among the most contentious in the state.

Among them is a backup power plant proposed for a sewage treatment facility in Newark. Nearby residents are trying to prevent the backup from being built, saying they are already overburdened by multiple sources of pollution.

Smith said utilities are still too reliant on these backup plants to suddenly ban new ones. (The original bill would not have affected existing power plants.)

“Right now all the experts I talk to say you’ve got to have a peaker,” he said. “The citizens of New Jersey will not tolerate us getting in the way of the electricity they need.”

Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said there are 26 power plants in New Jersey that burn fossil fuels, along with two nuclear power plants. The state no longer has coal-fired power plants.

The question is being debated around the country. In 2021, Whatcom County, about 100 miles (160 kilometers) north of Seattle, changed its land use laws to prohibit the construction of new oil refineries, coal-fired power plants, and facilities that transport fossil fuels.

Numerous states have banned coal power plants, and many say they are working toward 100% clean-energy economies.

Yet there is opposition as well. At least 15% of counties in the U.S. have prohibited new utility-scale wind or solar power projects, according to USA Today.

Dave Pringle of the Empower NJ environmental group, said New Jersey’s proposed ban does not go far enough.

“The only projects this will ban will be new gas power plants of a very large nature,” he said. “Clearly, economics dictates that those will not happen.”

In October, a Maryland-based energy company dropped plans to build a second gas-fired power plant next to one it already operates in Woodbridge, New Jersey. Competitive Power Ventures said market conditions had deteriorated to the point where the project was no longer economically feasible.

Anjuli Ramos-Busot, director of the New Jersey Sierra Club, said existing peaker plants are particularly dirty, adding the ones already in existence should be sufficient for near-term future energy reliability needs.

The most hotly fought power plant proposal in the state is happening in Newark. There, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission wants to build a gas-fired backup power plant to avoid a repeat of what happened when Superstorm Sandy knocked out power in 2012, causing nearly a billion gallons of untreated sewage to flow into area waterways.

The state’s public transportation agency, NJ Transit, scrapped plans for a similar backup plant last month in nearby Kearny, saying resiliency improvements to the electrical gird made the project unnecessary.

Business groups said near-term energy needs require continued use of fossil fuels.

“It is short-sighted to cut out fossil fuels,” said Dennis Hart, executive director of the Chemistry Council of New Jersey. “Our nuclear plants are 60 years old; you don’t know how long they’re going to be there.”

The bill still needs multiple layers of approval before a referendum could be placed on the November general election ballot.

Smith said the measure will be further amended in coming weeks to clarify that small backup or portable generators such as those used by homeowners or small businesses during outages also would not be subject to a ban.

This order allows NV Energy to move forward with ceasing coal operations at North Valmy Generating Station and transition to a natural gas-fired plant by the end of 2025. North Valmy is the company’s final coal plant in its portfolio. The two-unit, 522 MW facility is jointly owned by NV Energy and Idaho Power.

Unit 1, which went into service in 1981, produces 254 MW with a Babcock & Wilcox Boiler and Westinghouse turbine/generator. Unit 2 came online in 1985 and generates 268 MW with a Foster Wheeler Boiler and GE turbine/generator. Coal for the plant is shipped via railroad from various mines in Utah, Wyoming and Colorado.

PUCN also approved NV Energy’s plan to build additional transmission infrastructure to support continued growth in the state, including in the Apex area in the city of North Las Vegas – a growing center of economic development in Southern Nevada.

NV Energy also received conditional approval to begin developing the Sierra Solar project, a 400 MW solar site with a four-hour battery storage system in Northern Nevada.

While regulators approved the project, they expressed concern about its cost and said there would need to be ratepayer protections in the case of cost overruns.

The commission capped Sierra Solar’s construction costs at $1.5 billion and said NV Energy would need to pay credits to customers if the project doesn’t meet its completion goal of April 2027. Sierra Solar would be “the most expensive project ever proposed to be built or owned by NV Energy.”

The state of Nevada is aiming for a renewable portfolio of 50% by 2030 and 100% by 2050.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday it is delaying planned rules to curb emissions from existing natural gas plants that release harmful air pollutants and contribute to global warming.

The agency said it is still on track to finalize rules for coal-fired power plants and new gas plants that have not come online, a key step to slow planet-warming pollution from the power sector, the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

But in a turnaround from previous plans, the agency said it will review standards for existing gas plants and expand the rules to include more pollutants. The change came after complaints from environmental justice groups, who said the earlier plan allowed too much toxic air pollution which disproportionately harms low-income neighborhoods near power plants, refineries and other industrial sites.

“As EPA works towards final standards to cut climate pollution from existing coal and new gas-fired power plants later this spring, the agency is taking a new, comprehensive approach to cover the entire fleet of natural gas-fired turbines, as well as cover more pollutants,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement.

He called the new plan a “stronger, more durable approach” that will achieve greater emissions reductions than the current proposal. It also will better protect vulnerable frontline communities suffering from toxic air pollution caused by power plants and other industrial sites, Regan said.

Still, the plan was not universally welcomed by environmentalists, who said the new approach will likely push rules for existing gas plants past the November presidential election.

“We are extremely disappointed in EPA’s decision to delay finalizing carbon pollution standards for existing gas plants, which make up a significant portion of carbon emissions in the power sector,” said Frank Sturges, a lawyer for the Clean Air Task Force, an environmental group.

“Greenhouse gas emissions from power plants have gone uncontrolled for far too long, and we have no more time to waste,” he said.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, called EPA’s decision “inexplicable,” adding: “Making a rule that applies only to coal, which is dying out on its own, and to new gas power plants that are not yet built, is not how we are going to reach climate safety.”

But some environmentalists hailed the decision, saying the new plan would ultimately deliver better results.

“We have always known that the fight for a clean power sector wouldn’t be a quick one,” said Charles Harper of Evergreen Action. “EPA’s first order of business should be finalizing strong and necessary limits on climate pollution from new gas and existing coal plants as quickly as possible.”

“We are glad that EPA is committed to finishing the job with a new rule that covers every gas plant operating in the U.S.,” Harper added.

“Tackling dirty coal plants is one of the single most important moves the president and EPA can make to rein in climate pollution,” said Abigail Dillen, president of Earthjustice. “As utilities propose new fossil gas plants, we absolutely have to get ahead of a big new pollution problem.”

EPA issued a proposed rule in May 2023 that called for drastically curbing greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal and gas-fired plants, as well as future gas plants planned by the power industry. No new coal plant has opened in the U.S. in more than a decade, while dozens of coal-fired plants have closed in recent years in the face of competition from cheaper natural gas. The Biden administration has committed to create a carbon pollution-free power sector by 2035.

The EPA proposal could force power plants to capture smokestack emissions using a technology that has long been promised but is not used widely in the United States.

If finalized, the proposed regulation would mark the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants, which generate about 25% of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution, second only to the transportation sector. The rule also would apply to future electric plants and would avoid up to 617 million metric tons of carbon dioxide through 2042, equivalent to annual emissions of 137 million passenger vehicles, the EPA said.

Almost all coal plants — along with large, frequently used gas-fired plants — would have to cut or capture nearly all their carbon dioxide emissions by 2038, the EPA said. Plants that cannot meet the new standards would be forced to shutter.

Much of the EPA plan is expected to be made final this spring and is likely to be challenged by industry groups and Republican-leaning states. They have accused the Democratic administration of overreach on environmental regulations and warn of a pending reliability crisis for the electric grid. The power plant rule is one of at least a half-dozen EPA rules limiting power plant emissions and wastewater treatment.

The National Mining Association warned of “an onslaught” of government regulation “designed to shut down the coal fleet prematurely″ when the EPA proposal was announced last year.

Regan has denied that the power plant rule is aimed at shutting down the coal sector, but acknowledged last year that, “ we will see some coal retirements.”

Coal provided just over 16% of U.S. electricity in 2023, down from about 45% in 2010, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Natural gas provided about 43% of U.S. electricity. The remainder comes from nuclear energy and renewables such as wind, solar and hydropower.

Peggy Shepard, co-founder and executive director of WE ACT for Environmental Justice, a New York-based group, said she was pleased that the concerns of environmental justice communities will be factored into EPA’s rulemaking.

“The power sector is one of the top sources of carbon emissions and pollution,” she said. “With this pause to take a deeper dive into developing the most comprehensive and thoughtful rulemaking for existing gas plants, we have an opportunity to do this work correctly and effectively to protect the human and environmental health of the most overburdened, neglected and vulnerable people across the country.”

The EPA’s revised plan was first reported by Bloomberg News.