Texas, one of the states suing to block the EPA rule, said it will take no steps to comply while the challenge is pending. It would be required to cut CO2 emissions by almost one-third by 2030.
“The whole point of the stay is to stop us from having to provide any implementation plan, so we’re not moving forward with anything until this case is resolved,” state Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press conference Wednesday.
ERCOT said in a statement that it “will continue to monitor developments and provide information as needed to Texas policymakers on this and other matters that could affect future electric reliability.”
ISO-NE
The New England states are supporting EPA in the legal challenge.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy called the stay “disappointing and shortsighted.”
“Through programs like the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, we already have achieved significant reductions in carbon pollution from the electric sector, while growing our economies and maintaining reliable power. We have an obligation to combat greenhouse gases, and Connecticut is going to continue to do just that,” Malloy said.
“As we have always done, ISO New England will continue to provide support to the New England states as they develop their clean energy policies, while the [D.C. Circuit] takes this under consideration,” ISO-NE spokeswoman Marcia Blomberg said.
MISO
All but three of MISO’s 15 states — Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois — are opposing the EPA rule.
“MISO is still studying the Supreme Court’s stay, and we will have discussions with our stakeholder community to better understand their perspectives as we move forward,” MISO spokesperson Andy Schonert said in statement. “Our job as a reliability and transmission planner is to plan into a future that is uncertain as to how much and how fast policy might shift. Because of that, MISO’s modeling and planning efforts are designed to capture various potential outcomes.”
MISO said it is considering modeling a “partial CPP future,” which would assume that legal and political disputes slow the rule’s compliance or even bring it to a standstill, culminating in limited implementation.
Schonert said no decisions have been made yet to add the additional modeling option. Late last month, MISO was presenting results from a near-term analysis while it began to run scenarios under a mid-term analysis. The RTO also submitted comments to EPA on the federal plan that asked for the addition of a reliability safety valve. (See MISO: Mass-Based CPP Plan 1/3 Cost of Rate-Based.)
Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton said the court’s stay would not affect the state’s clean energy initiatives. “We shouldn’t need a federal edict to understand how vital it is that we keep doing everything in our collective powers to reduce harmful greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency and advance Minnesota’s clean energy economy,” he said.
In Missouri, the leaders of the House budget committee said last week they will add language into the state spending plan to prevent the Department of Natural Resources from working on compliance. It would need a 37% emissions reduction.
Montana, which would have to cut emissions by 47%, is putting its compliance plans “on hold,” Gov. Steve Bullock said.
NYISO
The stay is unlikely to affect New York, which would be required to cut CO2 emissions by 19.5%.
Last month, the New York Public Service Commission approved a 10-year, $5.3 billion Clean Energy Fund to accelerate the state’s switch to cleaner resources. The commission moved forward on creation of a Clean Energy Standard that would mandate 50% of New York’s electricity come from clean energy sources by 2030. (See NYPSC OKs $5.3B Clean Energy Fund.)
New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman issued a statement on behalf of his and 14 other states professing confidence that the rule will ultimately be upheld.
NYISO did not respond to requests for comment.
PJM
PJM said last week that the stay won’t affect its planned analysis of the economic and reliability implications of compliance. (See related story, PJM to Proceed on CPP Study Despite Supreme Court Ruling.)
“PJM is committed to delivering to the states, as promised, the analysis of the potential effects of the Clean Power Plan on wholesale markets and reliability,” PJM spokeswoman Paula DuPont-Kidd said. “Our role is to provide data and analysis to help inform the states should the states need to make decisions in the future.”
A Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection spokesman told the Pittsburgh Business Times the state “will continue planning and engagement with stakeholders on the Clean Power Plan, pending final decision” by the courts.
Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe vowed to “stay on course and continue to develop the elements for a Virginia plan to reduce carbon emissions and stimulate our clean energy economy.”
SPP
SPP has been urging states in its recently expanded territory to work together in compliance, arguing that state-by-state compliance would be more expensive and more difficult for the RTO to manage. (See SPP to Push Regional Approach in First CPP Webinar.)
“SPP is still evaluating the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to stay the EPA’s Clean Power Plan,” said Lanny Nickell, SPP vice president of engineering. “We will work closely with our stakeholders to determine how this action impacts both our ongoing regional transmission planning efforts and our work to facilitate compliance with the federal government’s carbon reduction goals.”
Oklahoma, which faces a one-third emission reduction, said it is banking on a rejection by the courts. “Since the Supreme Court has stayed implementation, Oklahoma no longer faces a September compliance date and can focus on assisting the attorney general on overturning this rule,” Oklahoma Secretary of Energy and Environment Michael Teague said.
— Amanda Durish Cook, Rich Heidorn Jr., Suzanne Herel, Tom Kleckner and William Opalka
