Skip to main content
ExplainerGrid Decarbonization· Updated · 3 min read· in Energy

Modeling How EPA 90% Carbon Capture Rules Reshape US Coal and Gas Power Plants

A multi-model analysis of the EPA's Section 111 rules reveals how mandating carbon capture for baseload gas and long-term coal plants reshapes the grid. The data shows significant emissions reductions, but highlights the infrastructure hurdles of scaling capture technology by the 2032 compliance deadline.

By Anastasia Kuznetsova

Share this story

Listen

In short

  • The EPA mandates 90% carbon capture by 2032 for existing coal plants operating past 2039 and new baseload gas plants.
  • New natural gas plants operating below a 40% capacity factor are exempt from the strict CCS requirement.
  • Grid modeling indicates the rule will reduce US power sector carbon emissions by 73% to 86% below 2005 levels by 2040.

A common misconception about the Environmental Protection Agency's Section 111 power plant regulations is that they act as a blanket ban on fossil fuels. In reality, the rules function as a strict technology-forcing mechanism. They establish a performance standard based on what is achievable through carbon capture and sequestration, leaving utilities to decide whether to install the technology, reduce their operating hours, or retire the assets entirely.[1][6]

The mandate divides the grid into specific operational categories. Existing coal-fired plants that intend to operate past 2039 must capture 90 percent of their carbon dioxide emissions by 2032. Similarly, any new natural gas plant designed to run as a baseload facility—defined as operating at a capacity factor greater than 40 percent—must also meet the 90 percent capture threshold by 2032.[1][4][5]

Facilities with shorter lifespans or lower utilization rates face different math. Coal plants scheduled to retire before 2039 can avoid the capture requirement by committing to a 16 percent emissions reduction by 2030, a target modeled on the feasibility of co-firing 40 percent natural gas. New gas plants operating below the 40 percent capacity threshold—often used as peaker plants to balance intermittent renewables—are exempt from the strict mandate, instead facing efficiency-based limits.[3][4]

Compliance pathways depend heavily on a facility's fuel type, capacity factor, and planned retirement date.

To understand how these thresholds actually reshape the grid, researchers from the Electric Power Research Institute, Rhodium Group, and other institutions conducted a multi-model ensemble analysis published in the journal Science. The models assessed whether utilities would actually build the multi-billion-dollar capture infrastructure or simply alter their dispatch strategies to avoid the mandate.[2][3][6]

The data indicates that the rule acts primarily as an accelerant for coal retirements rather than a catalyst for widespread retrofits. Across nine different grid models, the regulations are projected to reduce United States power sector carbon emissions to between 73 and 86 percent below 2005 levels by 2040. Without the rules, the baseline transition would only achieve a 60 to 83 percent reduction.[2][3]

Multi-model projections indicate the rules serve as a backstop, guaranteeing steeper emissions cuts even if baseline economic trends falter.

Beyond greenhouse gases, the carbon mandate triggers a massive downstream reduction in conventional air pollutants. By forcing older, uncontrolled coal plants offline, the rules drive an 88 to 98 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions by 2035, compared to a 70 to 88 percent reduction in the baseline scenario. This 10 to 18 percentage point delta represents a significant, isolated public health benefit directly attributable to the carbon standard.[2][6]

However, the evidence supporting the feasibility of deploying carbon capture at the required scale remains contested. While the agency determined that 90 percent capture is adequately demonstrated based on pilot projects and industrial applications, the power sector currently lacks the extensive pipeline networks and Class VI injection wells necessary to transport and store millions of tons of captured carbon dioxide. The models show that if permitting and supply chain bottlenecks delay this infrastructure, utilities will default to retiring baseload plants, potentially straining grid reliability.[1][3][5][6]

Ultimately, the Section 111 rules shift the burden of proof onto the fossil fuel industry. By setting a 2032 deadline for 90 percent capture, the mandate forces utilities to either prove that commercial-scale carbon capture is economically viable or cede baseload generation to zero-carbon alternatives. The next five years of infrastructure development will determine which pathway the grid takes.[4][5][6]

How we did this

Method
Derivation of the isolated regulatory impact on conventional air pollutants by subtracting the baseline reference scenario reductions from the rule-enforced scenario reductions to isolate the delta attributable solely to the carbon mandate.
What we found
The carbon-focused mandate acts as a major accelerant for conventional air pollutant removal, driving an additional 10 to 18 percentage points of sulfur dioxide elimination by 2035 beyond what the baseline grid transition would achieve on its own.
What we worked from
  • Baseline SO2 reduction by 2035 without rule: 70-88% — Science
  • Enforced SO2 reduction by 2035 with rule: 88-98% — Science
Limits of this analysis
This derivation relies on the bounds of the multi-model ensemble ranges and assumes the upper and lower bounds of both scenarios correlate directly.

Jargon, explained

Section 111(d)
A provision of the Clean Air Act that requires the EPA to establish emission guidelines for existing stationary sources of pollution.
Capacity Factor
The ratio of a power plant's actual electrical output over a period of time to its maximum potential output if it operated continuously.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS)
A suite of technologies that capture carbon dioxide from exhaust gases and inject it deep underground for permanent geological storage.
Baseload Generation
Power plants designed to operate continuously to meet the minimum level of power demand on the electrical grid.
Class VI Well
A specific type of underground injection well regulated by the EPA, designed exclusively for the long-term storage of carbon dioxide.

Competing readings

Grid Modelers & Climate Analysts

Focus on the rule's ability to lock in emissions reductions and accelerate the retirement of uncontrolled fossil fuels.

Analysts utilizing capacity-expansion models view the EPA's mandate as a critical backstop. Even if the economics of renewable energy falter or natural gas prices drop, the 90 percent capture requirement ensures that high-emitting baseload plants cannot dominate the grid indefinitely. They point to the massive co-benefits of the rule, noting that accelerating coal retirements will drastically reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution in adjacent communities.

Utility Operators & Grid Planners

Emphasize the logistical and financial hurdles of deploying commercial-scale carbon capture by the 2032 deadline.

Power providers argue that while 90 percent capture is theoretically possible, the timeline ignores the realities of infrastructure development. Utilities point out that capturing the carbon is only the first step; the United States currently lacks the extensive pipeline network and permitted Class VI injection wells required to permanently store the gas. Without this infrastructure, operators warn they will be forced to run new gas plants below the 40 percent capacity threshold, potentially threatening resource adequacy during peak demand periods.

Environmental & Climate Advocates 40%Grid & Systems Modelers 35%Regulatory Authorities 25%
Environmental & Climate Advocates
View the strict capture mandates as essential for meeting national climate targets and protecting public health.
Grid & Systems Modelers
Focus on the quantifiable impacts of the rule on emissions trajectories and capacity expansion.
Regulatory Authorities
Maintain that the standards are based on adequately demonstrated technologies and provide necessary flexibility.

Perspectives this story doesn't cover

  • Fossil Fuel Industry Associations
  • Rural Electric Cooperatives
  • State Utility Regulators

Sources

Source coverage

6 outlets

3 viewpoints surfaced

Environmental & Climate Advocates 40%Grid & Systems Modelers 35%Regulatory Authorities 25%
  1. [1]U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegulatory Authorities

    Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants

    Read on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency →
  2. [2]ScienceGrid & Systems Modelers

    Impacts of EPA's finalized power plant greenhouse gas standards

    Read on Science →
  3. [3]Rhodium GroupGrid & Systems Modelers

    EPA's New Standards for Power Plants

    Read on Rhodium Group →
  4. [4]World Resources InstituteEnvironmental & Climate Advocates

    What Do the EPA's Power Plant Rules Require?

    Read on World Resources Institute →
  5. [5]Clean Air Task ForceEnvironmental & Climate Advocates

    EPA delivers carbon emission reductions from power plants, but work remains

    Read on Clean Air Task Force →
  6. [6]Factlen Editorial Team

    Synthesis by Factlen editorial team

    Read on Factlen Editorial Team →
Listen

Comments

Stay informed

Every angle. Every day.

Get Energy stories with full source coverage and perspective breakdowns, free every day.