Florida utility regulators and other industry officials are objecting to a federal proposal aimed at reducing greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, arguing the changes could drive up costs for consumers and hurt the reliability of the state’s electric system.
The Florida Public Service Commission on Tuesday approved sending a document to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raising concerns that the proposed rule could “result in unjust, unreasonable, and excessively costly carbon emissions performance standards that would risk the safety, reliability and affordability of electric service in Florida.”
Officials from the Florida Municipal Power Agency, an electricity wholesaler for municipal utilities, and the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council, which works on energy planning, said their organizations also have sent concerns to the EPA.
“This (EPA) rule goes to the heart of whether we can meet the needs of the customers,” Jacob Williams, chairman of the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council board, told the Public Service Commission.
The EPA released the wide-ranging proposal in May, saying it would dramatically reduce carbon emissions over the next two decades while helping protect public health. A news release from the agency said the proposal would “require ambitious reductions in carbon pollution based on proven and cost-effective control technologies that can be applied directly to power plants.”
“By proposing new standards for fossil fuel-fired power plants, EPA is delivering on its mission to reduce harmful pollution that threatens people’s health and well-being,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a prepared statement. “EPA’s proposal relies on proven, readily available technologies to limit carbon pollution and seizes the momentum already underway in the power sector to move toward a cleaner future.”
During Tuesday’s Public Service Commission meeting, however, Commissioner Gary Clark expressed concern about “overreach” by the federal agency.
“The last thing we want to see is unnecessary expenses falling back on our customers,” Commissioner Mike La Rosa said.
The proposal, in part, would set new pollution standards for power plants fueled by natural gas and coal, while taking steps to shift toward cleaner technology such as a type of fuel known as green hydrogen.
Florida receives relatively little electricity generated with coal, but it relies heavily on natural gas. About 70 percent of the state’s power generation in 2021 came from gas, according to the document the Public Service Commission approved Tuesday.
As an example of the Florida officials’ concerns about the proposed rule, Williams and Navid Nowakhtar, asset and strategic planning director at the Florida Municipal Power Agency, pointed to a potential requirement for use of green hydrogen. If a green hydrogen threshold is not met by 2032, the proposed rule would require scaling back generation at large gas-fired power plants, they said.
The Public Service Commission document said “no Florida utility has demonstrated the capability to co-fire the volume of low-GHG (greenhouse gas) hydrogen required to comply with the proposed rule. Due to Florida’s unique circumstances, the FPSC (Public Service Commission) is concerned that Florida’s EGUs (electric generating units) will face substantial obstacles in implementing grid-scale hydrogen co-firing capabilities.”
The commission primarily regulates Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy Florida, Tampa Electric Co. and Florida Public Utilities Co., which are able to pass along environmental-compliance costs to customers. But the document approved Tuesday said the costs of the proposed rule remain unclear.
“Utility recovery of compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, as required by Florida law, will … have a near-immediate impact on the retail rates of electric service paid by all ratepayers in Florida,” the document said. “However, due to some of the uncertainties surrounding the proposed rule … the FPSC is unable to accurately estimate the potential costs that would be passed on to customers.”
–Jim Saunders, News Service of Florida
JimboXYZ says
With the growth that FL has experienced, particularly Flagler County, cutting down forests of trees on SR 100 & every new residential. More people is a greenhouse emissions deficit, nobody can conserve, even to the point of going without to offset the population growth & that environment impact. Saving the Planet is a lie, it’s all about the money & who is more worthy to be awarded those contracts, how the masses can be gouged. Part of it rests on the individual too for procreation, yet more human lives that will pollute more than can be offset by any green new deal era lies.
Deborah Coffey says
Pathetic. We can just all die from climate change or pay for 50 Hurricane Ians a year. But NO. It’s all about money.
Disgusted says
Well of course they objected. They wouldn’t want to lose one millionth of a percent in profit would they? GREED. It’s all about greed.
Jim says
Could you try this again in English? What’s your point????
Ed says
It should be noted that the utility companies will not absorb any (none) of the costs pointed out in the article. Consumers, you and me will pay with higher electric rates.
Currently California rates are at least double Florida. Regulations drive costs upward.
Did you know that plants and trees and everything growing give off carbon dioxide. Small amount during day even with photosynthesis, it’s respiration. At nigh they give off much more. Alarmists never mention that biological fact.
A “carbon tax” or these regulations are nearly meaningless until China, India, and the rest of the third world and developing nations join the fight.
The US is only 13-14 percent of the worlds green house gases.
We should not shackle our economy or our children’s future based on misinformation or an unobtainable goal. I’m not saying we stop trying but be rational.
As a nation we have done a lot to be good stuarts of the planet, but should 330 million Americans be expected to suffer for 8 billion who don’t care?
Not selfish, just realistic.
Ray W. says
Mitsubishi Heavy Industries reports that it has been testing different percentages of hydrogen-natural gas mixtures in gas turbine combined cycle electrical generating plants for the last 50 years. The testing comprises some 3.5 million hours of operation in 29 different generating plants. The company reports that a 30% hydrogen mix produces 10% fewer greenhouse gases. Apparently, operational efficiencies are not impacted, and reliability remains the same.
The issue will be the cost of obtaining the necessary hydrogen. If worldwide demand for natural gas continues to rise and if supplies of natural gas cannot rise to match the greater demand, then, eventually, the cost of using only natural gas to fire the generators will be greater than the cost of mixing in hydrogen. The moment that occurs, it will be cheaper to supply electricity using hydrogen mixed with natural gas. At that point, your entire argument falls apart.
In 2022, Oxford University Press published a review of numerous articles detailing hydrogen-natural gas mixtures in gas turbines. Some of the conclusions present that using hydrogen reduces gas turbine efficiency, but not by much. One problem is that hydrogen burns faster than natural gas, so flame control can be troublesome. Use of triple injectors and controlling the amounts of gases introduced by each injector can reduce the problem. (Think of the importance of a “squish band” in an internal combustion engine in controlling engine knock. When a spark ignites the gas/air mixture, the flame spreads rapidly outwards across the dome of the piston. If the flame front reaches the cylinder wall before top dead center, engine knock can occur. Cylinder heads and piston domes are designed with a squish band to slow the spread of the flame front just before it reaches the cylinder wall, to naturally reduce the tendency to engine knock. High octane gasoline contains a greater percentage of complex volatile hydrocarbons, which slows the spread of the flame front. This is why low octane gasoline is more susceptible to inducing engine knock.) Hydrogen fuel significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions. Hydrogen fuel increases emissions of nitrous oxide, but not by much.
There are multiple methods available to produce hydrogen fuel. More study is needed.
We need more science. We need more people who allow reason to lead them to its natural conclusion, not people who contort reason to fit a preconceived belief.
Laurel says
Jim: I believe his (XYZ) point is that with population growth, trying to offset pollution is moot. Personally, I believe massive birth control would be the best thing humans could do for this planet. But, maybe George Carlin was right when he stated that the Earth could just shake us off like fleas.
Laurel says
Ed: Plants are balanced in their use of carbon dioxide and oxygen. Humans are not. I don’t think “alarmists” should bother with natural processes until humans start to screw them up, which they have done so well. The forests of South America are considered the lungs of the Earth. Humans are hell bent on wiping these forests out.