The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a delay in the restrictions proposed on CO2 emissions until after the 2024 presidential elections. EPA administrator, Michael Regan, made the decision to delay imposing restrictions until they can be thoroughly reviewed and reconsidered.
While many have called the EPA’s proposed restrictions excessive and overreaching, the delay presents an opportunity to re-examine the potential pitfalls of strict emission enforcement. As the world transitions its energy focus and explores new options, it’s imperative to consider all angles and the possible stakes of a hasty emission limitation across the board.
The Most Ambitious Plan to Cut Emissions
The proposed air quality restrictions would impose heavy limitations on power plants and automobile manufacturers to slash emissions, which contribute to global pollution. These sanctions would drastically diminish the output of CO2 emissions by promoting the production of electric vehicles, reducing the sales of gas-powered cars, and capturing the emissions from coal and oil-fueled power plants.
The restrictions would require power plants to capture smokestack emissions by using a recently developed technology in the United States. While the new technology could potentially capture and dissipate the majority of power plant emissions, this tech is not widely available nationwide. As well, it is quite costly to establish electrical production facilities.
The proposed automobile limits would drastically decrease the production of gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles. In fact, this ordinance would force 54% of new vehicles to be electric by 2030 and two-thirds of all vehicles by 2033. This ambitious plan would dramatically decrease the production of traditionally powered vehicles.
Currently, electric vehicles only account for 7.2% of US vehicle sales in the first quarter of 2023, so the transition would need to spike dramatically to meet these lofty goals.
There is Much to Evaluate and Review
Michael Regan wrote in a letter to the EPA advisory panel, “I have decided that the best path forward is to initiate a new statutory review of the ozone (standard) and the underlying air quality criteria.” Regan claims there are many issues raised by the panel in a recent report that “warrant additional evaluation and review.” Among these issues and concerns are the economic and logistical particulars that the impositions would require.
Although the decision has been met with much opposition, the review will last a minimum of two years to complete. Within this revisitation, the EPA plans to adhere to the most recent studies and best protect Americans from pollutants and emissions.
Another point the EPA is taking into consideration is the upcoming 2024 presidential election cycle. Following complaints from Republicans that the new air quality rules would be too intrusive, the EPA’s leadership opted to delay implementing restrictions until well after the election is complete.
EPA’s Delay Met with Opposition
Naturally, this decision has been polarizing on multiple fronts. The Senior Vice President of the American Lung Association, Paul Billings, called the decision “profoundly disappointing,” as he viewed the restrictions as a positive step for promoting America’s healthy air quality. Billings has viewed this decision as a significant step back in the Clean Air Act, claiming that this delay will cause increased exposure to polluted air for many more years.
Further opposition came from Democratic lawmakers who were severely disappointed in the EPA’s delay. Many on the left are complaining that inaction will lead to further health complications and elevate the risk for those with underlying issues, like upper respiratory disease and asthma.
The polarizing decision to delay air quality regulations on automakers and power plants has caused an uproar within Washington. However, both sides have considerable points on the issue.
The Flip-Side of Restrictions
Not everyone is upset at the EPA’s decision, however. On the other side of the argument are those who view the delay as an opportunity to reconsider potentially overreaching policies. For example, Connor Bernstein, a representative of the National Mining Association, praised the EPA’s decision to delay. Bernstein encourages the EPA not to be hasty with an “unnecessary review of ozone standards.” He further stated that the now-delayed restrictions would “target coal-fired power plants and endanger the reliability of the power grid.”
The impact of the sudden restrictions could have many unforeseen implications and consequences. In addition to economic consequences, the impact on the American power grid could be potentially devastating if the EPA had not delayed its decision.
Oil and gas companies are thrilled with the delay in ozone restrictions. Further regulations on the “already tight” ozone limitations could hamper production and impact gas prices across the board. So, the decision to reevaluate the new restrictions after the election cycle could give American energy production a welcome breath of reprieve.
Potential Economic Impact of Strict Emissions Limitations
Like any drastic change, imposing strict ozone regulations could have any number of outcomes. While not every result would be contentious, a few potential pitfalls could negatively impact the American economy and energy sector. The EPA is taking into consideration several of these economic factors as well as the scientific data on regulating CO2 emissions.
Before implementing the emissions restrictions, the EPA is considering some of the following economic factors:
1. Transition Expenses
The technology required to capture CO2 emissions from power plants is relatively fresh in development. While the concept excites the green energy movement, it remains a costly endeavor. Installing CO2-capturing equipment in every power-producing facility would be a massive undertaking and could cost billions just to get up and running. Meanwhile, continued maintenance and repairs to new tech would also be far from cheap.
By delaying CO2 emissions restrictions, the EPA is potentially giving power plants time to repair and update equipment at a more reasonable pace. This also allows for a smoother transition rather than an abrupt move for power plants.
2. American Taxpayers Would Cover the Cost
As inflation continues to rise, Americans are paying more for everyday expenses than ever. Forcing power plants to install expensive technology would drastically affect the cost of energy and would trickle down to American taxpayers. Increasing the already skyrocketing electricity costs could tax the average energy consumer.
However, because the EPA is delaying the restrictions, taxpayers may not see an extensive increase in their electricity bill. Any expense break is welcomed with groceries, electricity, and other everyday expenses so high under current inflationary pressures.
3. Loss of Energy Security
Several regions of the country heavily rely on fossil fuel production for energy security for their power grid. Rapidly transitioning from traditional fuel sources, like coal and oil, could destabilize the consistent electricity flow from millions of Americans. This loss of energy security could be detrimental to American households across the nation, particularly those in rural areas.
The potential loss of energy security is essential when discussing the rapid transition away from traditional fuel sources. Unreliable power access could lead to other security risks and potential economic hardships.
4. Technological Challenges
Unfortunately, the technology required to transition to renewable energy sources is not yet perfected. In addition to the astronomical cost of installing CO2-capturing equipment on power plants, the infrastructure to rely entirely on renewable resources is simply not in place. Although there have been great strides towards investing in renewable energy, we are still far from total dependence and sustainability.
Furthermore, clean technology can be extremely finicky and complex. As we continue to develop new methods of energy production, an equal number of challenges have arisen.
5. A Hard Blow to American Businesses
Power plants across the nation would be forced to adopt new technologies and policies to adhere to the air quality restrictions. This could be challenging and complex for power-producing businesses and their workers. Poorly designed or hasty policies could harm energy Innovation and economic growth.
Delaying the enforcement of CO2 emission restrictions allows power plants to prepare for future policies and prepare the workforce to aid in the transition gradually.
Taking Time To Review
With the EPA’s decision to delay beyond the upcoming presidential election, the scientific review panel can take the time necessary to consider every angle and potential repercussions of the ozone emissions limitations. This can be a valuable time for Americans to consider investing in the future while living in the current energy reality.
As the green energy movement evolves, making informed, science-backed decisions is crucial to the future of energy production. Without jumping headfirst into unknown and intrusive regulations, there is potential to consider a balanced view of any mass regulation.
Stay Energy-Aware with Shale
A lot is changing in the world of energy. As the power landscape rapidly evolves, savvy consumers and investors need to keep a close eye on the energy sector. At Shale Magazine, our expert reporters dig deep to bring you the facts on the ever-changing energy happenings. We are your reliable source for keen insights into the intricacies of energy, finance, and sustainability.
Check out our past issues for expert insight for savvy energy investors. If you’re constantly hunting for more energy-related content, give a listen to our award-winning podcast, In the Oil Patch.
