In August of 2015, President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency announced the Clear Power Plan (CPP). They said that this new plan was intended to reduce carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by thirty two percent by 2030 in order to mitigate climate change. The EPA says that " the plan is fair, flexible and designed to strengthen the fast-growing trend toward cleaner and lower-polluting American energy. With strong but achievable standards for power plants, and customized goals for states to cut the carbon pollution that is driving climate change, the Clean Power Plan provides national consistency, accountability and a level playing field while reflecting each state’s energy mix. It also shows the world that the United States is committed to leading global efforts to address climate change."
When U.S. representative went to the Twenty First Conference of the Parties (COP21) on climate change in Paris last November, they held up the CPP as proof that the U.S. was very serious about addressing climate change. The CPP went into effect on December 22 of 2015. Compliance with the CPP is mandated to begin in 2022.
The CPP calls for states to reduce the carbon emissions from their power plants thru adoptions of a variety of low or no-carbon power sources. One of the controversial provisions in the CPP was to only allow states to count power from nuclear power plants for up to six percent of their quota for compliant power sources. This aroused strong opposition from the nuclear power industry and its supporters in the U.S. Congress. They complained that nuclear power was a good source of low carbon power generation and that it was critical to the effort to mitigate climate change. There were bills against the CPP passed by the House and Senate but vetoed by the President. There was also a bill proposed that would delay implementation of the CPP until all legal challenges were resolved.
In January of 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a request to stay the federal carbon regulations. Twenty nine states and state agencies appealed to the Supreme Court to stay the regulations. On February 22, the Supreme court ruled in favor of the states and their agencies. The CPP will be put on hold until the D.C. District Court of Appeals reviews the plan and any other appeals to the Supreme Court are resolved. Thirty four Senators and one hundred seventy one House members filed an amicus brief against the CPP with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals following the Supreme Court ruling.
The CPP caused great confusion and consternation in the nuclear industry because it required them to rethink their investment in nuclear power reactors, both existing and planned. Now the stay on the CPP has caused even more confusion. The nuclear industry does not know whether or not the CPP will stand after the various lawsuits and appeals have been dealt with which could take years. In the meantime, it will be difficult for the industry to make decisions because nuclear power may or may not be allowed to play a larger role climate change mitigation. If they guess wrong, it could cost billions of dollars. On the other hand, if they hold off investments, they may miss opportunities as other forms of low carbon power generation become cheaper and attract investment.
