COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — The South Carolina Senate on Thursday started its homework assignment of coming up with a comprehensive bill to guide energy policy in a rapidly growing state and amid a quickly changing power- generation world.

The Special Committee on South Carolina’s Energy Future plans several meetings through October. On Thursday, the committee heard from the leaders of the state’s three major utilities. Future meetings will bring in regular ratepayers, environmentalists, business leaders and experts on the latest technology to make electricity,

The Senate took this task upon itself. They put the brakes a massive 80-plus page energy overhaul bill that passed the House in March in less than six weeks, and the bill died at the end of the session.

Many senators said the process earlier this year was rushed. They remembered the last time they trusted an overhaul bill backed by utilities.

State-owned Santee Cooper and private South Carolina Electric & Gas used those rules passed 15 years ago to put ratepayers on the hook for billions of dollars spent on two new nuclear reactors that never generated a watt of power before construction was abandoned because of rising costs.

But those dire memories are being mixed with dire predictions of a state running out of power.

Unusually cold weather on Christmas Eve 2022 along with problems at a generating facility nearly led to rolling blackouts in South Carolina. Demand from advanced manufacturing and data centers is rising. If electric cars grow in popularity, more power is needed. And a state that added 1.3 million people since 2000 has a lot more air conditioners, washing machines and charges for devices, the utility leaders said.

Senators stopped Duke Energy’s president in South Carolina, Mike Callahan, in middle of his presentation after he told them his utility’s most recent predictions for growth in electricity usage over the rest of this decade were eight times more than they were just two years ago.

“Growth is here, and much more is coming. We need clear energy policy to plan for that growth,” Callahan said,

The utility leaders told senators their companies need to know what kind of sources of power — natural gas, solar, nuclear, wind or others — the state wants to emphasize. They would like to have a stable rules from regulators on how they operate.

“A quick no is a lot better to us than a long-term maybe,” Santee Cooper CEO Jimmy Staton said.

Another complicating factor are federal rules that may require utilities to shut down power plants that use coal before there are replacements with different sources online, Staton said.

Others aren’t so sure the state needs a rapid increase in power generation. Environmentalists have suggested the 2022 problems that led to blackouts were made worse because power plants were nowhere near capacity and better cooperation in the grid would allow electricity to get to where its needed easier.

Those less bullish on the overhaul also are urging the state not to lock in on one source of power over another because technology could leave South Carolina with too much power generation in inefficient ways.

There will likely be plenty of discussion of data centers that use a lot of electricity without the number of jobs, property taxes or other benefits a manufacturer provides.

Staton estimated about 70% of Santee Cooper’s increased demand is from data centers.

“We clearly need them. I don’t want to go back in time,” committee chairman Republican Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey said. “What I’m trying to get at is a better understanding, a better handle on how much of the projected growth is based on data centers or on everything else.”

Massey has been hard on Dominion Energy, which bought South Carolina Electric & Gas after the abandoned nuclear project at the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station. But Dominion Energy South Carolina President Keller Kissam said it is important that all options, including a new nuclear plant, remain on the table.

“Everybody thinks if we build anything that we’re going to absolutely repeat what we did with V.C. Summer” Kissam said. “Well, I promise you, that ain’t gonna happen. OK? I’ll pack up and leave.”

Massey said he appreciated Kissam’s candor and felt he was a straight shooter, but there are a lot of other people involved in the failed project who lied and hid problems.

“I can’t put that behind me. And I don’t think a lot of people can put that behind them,” Massey said.

Massey’s goal is to have a bill ready by the time the 2025 session starts in January.

TOKYO (AP) — An attempt to use an extendable robot to remove a fragment of melted fuel from a wrecked reactor at Japan’s tsunami-hit Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was suspended Thursday due to a technical issue.

The collection of a tiny sample of the debris inside the Unit 2 reactor’s primary containment vessel would start the fuel debris removal phase, the most challenging part of the decades-long decommissioning of the plant where three reactors were destroyed in the March 11, 2011, magnitude 9.0 earthquake and tsunami disaster.

The work was stopped when workers noticed that five 1.5-meter (5-foot) pipes used to maneuver the robot were placed in the wrong order and could not be corrected within the time limit for their radiation exposure, the plant operator Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings said.

The pipes were to be used to push the robot inside and pull it back out when it finished. Once inside the vessel, the robot is operated remotely from a safer location.

The robot can extend up to about 22 meters (72 feet) to reach its target area to collect a fragment from the surface of the melted fuel mound using a device equipped with tongs that hang from the tip of the robot.

The mission to obtain the fragment and return with it is to last two weeks. TEPCO said a new start date is undecided.

“It seems to me a basic mistake,” TEPCO spokesperson Kenichi Takahara said of the pipe setup problem. He said officials are investigating and the retrieval mission will resume only after they find the cause and have preventive measures “so a problem like this should never be repeated.”

TEPCO President Tomoaki Kobayakawa said the priority was safety rather than rushing the process.
The goal of the operation was to bring back less than 3 grams (0.1 ounce) of an estimated 880 tons of fatally radioactive molten fuel. The small sample will provide key data to develop future decommissioning methods and necessary technology and robots, experts say.

Better understanding of the melted fuel debris is key to decommissioning the three wrecked reactors and the entire plant.

The government and TEPCO are sticking to a 30 to 40-year cleanup target set soon after the meltdown, despite criticism it is unrealistic. No specific plans for the full removal of the melted fuel debris or its storage have been decided.

ATLANTA (AP) — Utility regulators on Tuesday approved a plan for Georgia Power Co. to expand a power plant southwest of Atlanta.

The Georgia Public Service Commission voted 5-0 for the unit of Atlanta-based Southern Co. to build three new fossil-fuel burning units at Plant Yates, near Newnan.

The company has declined to say how much it will spend on the plants, which will burn either natural gas or diesel fuel to generate electricity, but commission staff members have said similar recent plants in other states have cost $800 million or more.

The commission greenlighted building the plants in April, when it approved a special plan to add generating capacity because the utility said demand was increasing more rapidly than previous projections, driven in part by a boom in computer data centers locating in Georgia. The company won permission to build the units itself, without seeking outside bids for electrical generation, because its projections show it needs more electricity by the end 2026.

“Simply put, we need to build these units and we need to build them now,” Georgia Power lawyer Steve Hewitson told commissioners Thursday during a committee meeting.

Normally, commissioners approve long-term generating and rate plans for Georgia Power once every three years, but this approval came mid-cycle. Because the regular generating and rate plans will be up for consideration next year, customers will see no change in bills because of Plant Yates until 2026.

Georgia Power customers have seen their bills rise sharply in recent years because of higher natural gas costs, the cost of construction projects, including two new nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, and other factors. A typical Georgia Power residential customer now pays more than $173 a month, including taxes.

Environmentalists and customer advocates questioned letting Georgia Power build new fossil fuel plants without going through a competitive process. Using those sources would mean Georgia Power emits more climate-altering carbon dioxide than using solar generation, other renewable sources and conservation.

They also argue that it leaves customers more exposed to the risk of rising natural gas costs, which have been a big ingredient in recent bill increases. The units would mostly run on natural gas but would switch to diesel when electrical demand is at peak and more natural gas can’t be purchased or delivered by pipeline.

Curt Thompson, a lawyer representing the Sierra Club and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, argued Thursday that Georgia Power should bear some of the risks of rising natural gas costs. In Georgia, the company has been allowed to pass through the entire costs of fuel for its plants, including the combustion turbines it wants to build at Yates.

“The utility industry in general and Georgia Power, in particular, have become increasingly reliant on gas,” Thompson said. “The Yates CTs would only deepen that gas addiction.”

Opponents had again asked the commission to wait until it could examine bids to provide generation, even though commissioners had approved the Yates plan in April.

“Those resources may well be cheaper, cleaner, and a better fit for Georgia Power customers,” Thompson said.

Georgia Power agreed it wouldn’t charge for cost overruns for the turbines unless they are caused by factors outside the company’s “reasonable control.” It’s supposed to submit reports on construction progress every six months.

The fire, described as small by Georgia Power Co. spokesperson John Kraft, broke out about noon and could have threatened the electrical supply to the heating and cooling system for the control room of one of the complex’s two older nuclear reactors, Vogtle Unit 2.

The fire was put out by plant employees, Georgia Power officials said, and the alert ended just after 2:30 p.m. The cause of the fire hasn’t yet been determined, Kraft said.

Dave Gasperson, a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesperson, said the fire was contained and did not affect any of the plant’s operating systems, and a backup power system remained available for the heating and cooling system. Gasperson said the commission’s onsite inspector monitored the situation and the commission, a federal agency which oversees nuclear power plants, is determining whether additional follow-up inspections are needed.

Officials said the fire caused no injuries and didn’t threaten the safety or health of employees or members of the public. All four of the nuclear reactors onsite continued to produce electricity at full power, Kraft said.

An alert is the second-least serious category of emergency out of four categories designated by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, an agency that oversees nuclear power plants. That category could reduce a plant’s level of safety but isn’t supposed to affect the public. The plant returned to normal operations after terminating the alert.

Georgia Power said workers are coordinating recovery with federal, state and local officials. Georgia Power owns the plant along with partners Oglethorpe Power Corp., Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia and Dalton city utilities. It supplies electricity to almost all Georgians, as well as some utilities in Florida and Alabama.

The two older nuclear reactors were completed in 1987 and 1989. If they lose primary electricity from the outside grid, as well as backup electricity from a diesel generator, the reactors can overheat and melt down. A diesel generator was never needed Tuesday, Kraft said.

Vogtle’s two newer nuclear reactors are designed to avoid a meltdown from a power loss. Those reactors were completed this year and are the first new reactors built from scratch in the United States in decades. They cost the owners $31 billion, finishing seven years late and $17 billion over budget. Add in $3.7 billion that original contractor Westinghouse paid Vogtle owners to walk away from construction, and the total nears $35 billion.

The U.S. Department of Energy said the California Hydrogen Hub will receive an initial $30 million to begin its planning and design phase. The state will eventually receive up to $1.2 billion for the project that is a key part of the Biden administration’s agenda to slow climate change.

The administration in October selected seven regional hubs for the $7 billion program that will kickstart development and production of hydrogen fuel, with the goal of eventually replacing fossil fuels such as coal and oil with the colorless, odorless gas that already powers some cars and trains.

The hubs, which include projects in 16 states, will spur more than $40 billion in private investment and create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs, many of them union positions, President Joe Biden has said.

The president has called clean hydrogen essential to his vision of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 2050.

The projects will be based in California, Washington, Minnesota, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Illinois. All but the California and Texas hubs include projects in multiple states. Pennsylvania has projects in two separate hubs.

Frank Wolak, president and CEO of the Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Energy Association, said the announcement is monumental because the Energy Department got through a rigorous competitive process to be at the point now where there are contracts and it’s able to fund the hubs.

The money will fund a major infrastructure program and invest in the future of clean energy, he added.

“It’s the beginning of really showing what the hubs are going to be doing,” he said. “They’re all unique. In the case of California, they’re undertaking projects for using hydrogen for the decarbonization of the hard-to-abate sectors in transportation, among other things. Transportation is a big portion of what they’re going to tackle.”

A hub is meant to be a network of companies that produce clean hydrogen and of the industries that use it — heavy transportation, for example — and infrastructure such as pipelines and refueling stations.

Hydrogen can be made in ways that yield little if any planet-warming greenhouse gases. The Energy Department says hydrogen, once produced, can generate power in a fuel cell, emitting only water vapor and warm air.

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a victory for President Joe Biden’s administration, a federal appeals court on Friday ruled that a new federal regulation aimed at limiting planet-warming pollution from coal-fired power plants can remain in force as legal challenges continue.

Industry groups and some Republican-led states had asked the court to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule on an emergency basis, saying it was unattainable and threatened reliability of the nation’s power grid.

The EPA rule, announced in April, would force many coal-fired power plants to capture 90% of their carbon emissions or shut down within eight years. The rules are a key part of the Democratic president’s pledge to eliminate carbon pollution from the electricity sector by 2035 and economy-wide by 2050.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected the industry request to block the rule, saying the groups had not shown they are likely to succeed on the merits. Nor did the case invoke a major question under a previous Supreme Court ruling, since the EPA claimed only the power to “set emissions limits … that would reduce pollution by causing the regulated source to operate more cleanly,” the appeals court ruled.

The unanimous ruling also rejected the claim of immediate harm, saying compliance deadlines do not take effect until 2030 or 2032.

The ruling was issued by Judges Patricia Millett, Cornelia Pillard and Neomi Rao. Millett and Pillard were appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat, while Rao was named to the court by President Donald Trump, a Republican.

Environmental groups hailed the ruling, saying the court recognized the EPA’s legal responsibility to control harmful pollution, including from greenhouse gas emissions. The power sector is the nation’s second-largest contributor to climate change.

“Americans across the nation are suffering from the intense heat waves, extreme storms and flooding and increased wildfires caused by climate pollution,” said Vickie Patton, general counsel of the Environmental Defense Fund, which filed a friend-of-the court brief in the case. The EDF and other groups “will continue to strongly defend EPA’s cost-effective and achievable carbon pollution standards for power plants,” she said.

Meredith Hankins, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the EPA rule “set reasonable standards for utilities and states to cut their carbon pollution.” The searing heat wave hitting much of the nation is a sign of how much the rules are needed, she said.

“The idea that power producers need immediate relief from modest standards that start to kick in eight years from now was obviously absurd,” Hankins added. West Virginia and other states that challenged the rule “have plenty of time to begin their planning process” to comply with the rule, she said.

The National Mining Association, which joined the legal challenges, said it would seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher. The nation’s power supply is already being pushed to the limit, and this rule flies in the face of what the nation’s utilities, grid operators and grid reliability experts tell us is needed to maintain grid reliability,” said Rich Nolan, the group’s president and CEO.

Nolan and other industry leaders said the rule would force the premature closure of power plants that are crucial to maintaining grid reliability even as demand for electricity surges.

Timothy Carroll, a spokesman for the EPA, said the agency was pleased that the court allowed the power plant rule to go into effect while litigation continues.

“EPA’s final standards will significantly reduce emissions of harmful carbon pollution from existing coal-fired power plants, which continue to be the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector,” Carroll said.

The EPA projects that the rule will yield up to $370 billion in climate and health net benefits and avoid nearly 1.4 billion metric tons of carbon pollution through 2047, equivalent to preventing annual emissions of 328 million gasoline-powered cars.

The power plant rule marks the first time the federal government has restricted carbon dioxide emissions from existing coal-fired power plants. The rule also would force future electric plants fueled by coal or natural gas to control up to 90% of their carbon pollution.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency will not be able to enforce a key rule limiting air pollution in nearly a dozen states while separate legal challenges proceed around the country, under a Supreme Court decision Thursday.

The EPA’s “good neighbor” rule is intended to restrict smokestack emissions from power plants and other industrial sources that burden downwind areas with smog-causing pollution.

Three energy-producing states — Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia — challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective.

The Supreme Court put the rule on hold while legal challenges continue, the conservative-led court’s latest blow to federal regulations.

The high court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, has increasingly reined in the powers of federal agencies, including the EPA, in recent years. The justices have restricted EPA’s authority to fight air and water pollution, including a landmark 2022 ruling that limited EPA’s authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants that contribute to global warming.

The court is also weighing whether to overturn its 40-year-old Chevron decision, which has been the basis for upholding a wide range of regulations on public health, workplace safety and consumer protections.

A look at the good neighbor rule and the implications of the court decision.

What is the ‘good neighbor’ rule?

The EPA adopted the rule as a way to protect downwind states that receive unwanted air pollution from other states. Besides the potential health impacts from out-of-state pollution, many states face their own federal deadlines to ensure clean air.

States such as Wisconsin, New York and Connecticut said they struggle to meet federal standards and reduce harmful levels of ozone because of pollution from out-of-state power plants, cement kilns and natural gas pipelines that drift across their borders.

Ground-level ozone, commonly known as smog, forms when industrial pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, refineries and other sources chemically react in the presence of sunlight. High ozone levels can cause respiratory problems, including asthma and chronic bronchitis. People with compromised immune systems, the elderly and children playing outdoors are particularly vulnerable.

Judith Vale, New York’s deputy solicitor general, told the court that for some states, as much as 65% of smog pollution comes from outside its borders.

States that contribute to ground-level ozone must submit plans ensuring that coal-fired power plants and other industrial sites do not add significantly to air pollution in other states. In cases where a state has not submitted a “good neighbor” plan — or where EPA disapproves a state plan — a federal plan is supposed to ensure downwind states are protected.

What’s next for the rule?

The Supreme Court decision blocks EPA enforcement of the rule and sends the case back to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which is considering a lawsuit challenging the regulation that was brought by 11 mostly Republican-leaning states.

An EPA spokesman said the agency believes the plan is firmly rooted in its authority under the Clean Air Act and “looks forward to defending the merits of this vital public health protection” before that appeals court.

The spokesman, Timothy Carroll, said the Supreme Court’s ruling will “postpone the benefits that the Good Neighbor Plan is already achieving in many states and communities.”

While the plan is on pause, “Americans will continue to be exposed to higher levels of ground-level ozone, resulting in costly public health impacts that can be especially harmful to children and older adults,” Carroll said. Ozone disproportionately affects people of color, families with low incomes, and other vulnerable populations, he said.

Rich Nolan, president and CEO of the National Mining Association, said he was pleased that the Supreme Court “recognized the immediate harm to industry and consumers posed by this reckless rule. No agency is permitted to operate outside of the clear bounds of the law and today, once again, the Supreme Court reminded the EPA of that fact.”

With a stay in place, Nolan said the mining industry looks forward to making its case in court that the EPA rule “is unlawful in its excessive overreach and must be struck down to protect American workers, energy independence, the electric grid and the consumers it serves,.”

Few states participate

The EPA rule was intended to provide a national solution to the problem of ozone pollution, but challengers said it relied on the assumption that all 23 states targeted by the rule would participate. In fact, only about half that number of states were participating as of early this year.

A lawyer for industry groups that are challenging the rule said it imposes significant and immediate costs that could affect the reliability of the electric grid. With fewer states participating, the rule may result in only a small reduction in air pollution, with no guarantee the final rule will be upheld, industry lawyer Catherine Stetson told the Supreme Court in oral arguments earlier this year.

The EPA has said power-plant emissions dropped by 18% in 2023 in the 10 states where it has been allowed to enforce its rule, which was finalized last year. Those states are Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. In California, limits on emissions from industrial sources other than power plants are supposed to take effect in 2026.

The rule is on hold in another dozen states because of separate legal challenges. The states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

Administrative overstep or life-saving protection?

Critics, including Republicans and business groups, call the good neighbor rule an example of government overreach.

The EPA rule and other Biden administration regulations “are designed to hurriedly rid the U.S. power sector of fossil fuels by sharply increasing the operating costs, … forcing the plants’ premature retirement,” Republican lawmakers said in a brief filed with the high court.

Supporters disputed that and called the “good neighbor” rule critical to address interstate air pollution and ensure that all Americans have access to clean air.

“Today’s move by far-right Supreme Court justices to stay commonsense clean air rules shows just how radical this court has become,” said Charles Harper of environmental group Evergreen Action.

“The court is meddling with a rule that would prevent 1,300 Americans from dying prematurely every year from pollution that crosses state borders. We know that low-income and disadvantaged communities with poor air quality will bear the brunt of this delay,” Harper said.

Roger Reynolds, senior legal director of the environmental group Save the Sound, said the decision hinders the EPA from protecting states such as Connecticut and New York that suffer from ozone pollution generated in the Midwest.

“We cannot reach healthy air quality for our residents without addressing upwind pollution, in addition to local sources,” Reynolds said.

The rule applies mostly to states in the South and Midwest that contribute to air pollution along the East Coast. Some states, such as Texas, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois and Wisconsin, both contribute to downwind pollution and receive it from other states.

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California Legislature signaled its intent on Thursday to cancel a $400 million loan payment to help finance a longer lifespan for the state’s last nuclear power plant, exposing a rift with Gov. Gavin Newsom who says that the power is critical to safeguarding energy supplies amid a warming climate.

The votes in the state Senate and Assembly on funding for the twin-domed Diablo Canyon plant represented an interim step as Newsom and legislative leaders, all Democrats, continue to negotiate a new budget. But it sets up a public friction point involving one of the governor’s signature proposals, which he has championed alongside the state’s rapid push toward solar, wind and other renewable sources.

The dispute unfolded in Sacramento as environmentalists and antinuclear activists warned that the estimated price tag for keeping the seaside reactors running beyond a planned closing by 2025 had ballooned to nearly $12 billion, roughly doubling earlier projections. That also has raised the prospect of higher fees for ratepayers.

Operator Pacific Gas & Electric called those figures inaccurate and inflated by billions of dollars.

H.D. Palmer, a spokesperson for the California Department of Finance, emphasized that budget negotiations are continuing and the legislative votes represented an “agreement between the Senate and the Assembly — not an agreement with the governor.”

The votes in the Legislature mark the latest development in a decades-long fight over the operation and safety of the plant, which sits on a bluff above the Pacific Ocean midway between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Diablo Canyon, which began operating in the mid-1980s, produces up to 9% of the state’s electricity on any given day.

The fight over the reactors’ future is playing out as the long-struggling U.S. nuclear industry sees a potential rebirth in the era of global warming. Nuclear power doesn’t produce carbon pollution like fossil fuels, but it leaves behind waste that can remain dangerously radioactive for centuries.

A Georgia utility just finished the first two scratch-built American reactors in a generation at a cost of nearly $35 billion. The price tag for the expansion of Plant Vogtle from two of the traditional large reactors to four includes $11 billion in cost overruns. In Wyoming, Bill Gates and his energy company have started construction on a next-generation nuclear power plant that the tech titan believes will “revolutionize” how power is generated.

In 2016, PG&E, environmental groups and plant worker unions reached an agreement to close Diablo Canyon by 2025. But the Legislature voided the deal in 2022 at the urging of Newsom, who said the power is needed to ward off blackouts as a changing climate stresses the energy system. That agreement for a longer run included a $1.4 billion forgivable state loan for PG&E, to be paid in several installments.

California energy regulators voted in December to extend the plant’s operating run for five years, to 2030.

The legislators’ concerns were laid out in an exchange of letters with the Newsom administration, at a time when the state is trying to close an estimated $45 billion deficit. Among other concerns, they questioned if, and when, the state would be repaid by PG&E, and whether taxpayers could be out hundreds of millions of dollars if the proposed extension for Diablo Canyon falls through.

Construction at Diablo Canyon began in the 1960s. Critics say potential earthquakes from nearby faults not known to exist when the design was approved could damage equipment and release radiation. One fault was not discovered until 2008. PG&E has long said the plant is safe, an assessment the NRC has supported.

Last year, environmental groups called on federal regulators to immediately shut down one of two reactors at the site until tests can be conducted on critical machinery they believe could fail and cause a catastrophe. Weeks later, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission took no action on the request and instead asked agency staff to review it.

The questions raised by environmentalists about the potential for soaring costs stemmed from a review of state regulatory filings submitted by PG&E, they said. Initial estimates of about $5 billion to extend the life of the plant later rose to over $8 billion, then nearly $12 billion, they said.

“It’s really quite shocking,” said attorney John Geesman, a former California Energy Commission member who represents the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, an advocacy group that opposes federal license renewals in California. The alliance told the state Public Utilities Commission in May that the cost would represent “by far the largest financial commitment to a single energy project the commission has ever been asked to endorse.”

PG&E spokesperson Suzanne Hosn said the figures incorrectly included billions of dollars of costs unrelated to extending operations at the plant.

The company has pegged the cost at $8.3 billion, Hosn said, adding that “the financial benefits exceed the costs.”

The Senate moved to ensure that political reality as lawmakers approved three new members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said confirmation of the three nominees would allow FERC to “keep its quorum and continue its mission of providing Americans with affordable, reliable, safe energy.”

The five-member commission oversees natural gas pipelines and other energy infrastructure, including transmission of electricity across state lines. The panel approved a long-awaited rule last month making it easier to transmit renewable energy such as wind and solar power to the electric grid — a key part of Biden’s goal to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions economy-wide by 2050. The rule is aimed at boosting the nation’s aging power grid to meet surging demand fueled by huge data centers, electrification of vehicles and buildings, artificial intelligence and other uses.

“We were pleased to see all three of the incoming nominees make commitments to maintain FERC’s independence as an economic regulator focused on reliability during their confirmation hearings,” said Todd Snitchler, president and CEO of the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA). “It will be essential that FERC works to address wholesale power market barriers and opportunities to ensure reliability and drive competitive investment. Support for the proven ability of markets to deliver reliable, cost-effective, and innovative grid solutions will be essential.”

Earlier this week, the agency approved a request by the nearly $8 billion Mountain Valley Pipeline to begin sending natural gas across rugged mountainsides in West Virginia and Virginia, despite longstanding objections from environmental groups, landowners and some elected officials.

On Wednesday, the Senate approved the nominations of Democrat David Rosner and Republican Lindsay See for three and four-year terms, respectively, on the commission. Senators also limited debate on Democrat Judy Chang’s nomination to a five-year term. A final vote on Chang’s nomination to replace Democrat Allison Clements occurred Thursday.

“We commend the Senate for confirming these three FERC nominees, thus ensuring a full, bipartisan complement of five commissioners,” said Ray Long, President and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). “The Commission is facing multiple critical tasks, including expanding interregional transmission, accelerating the deployment of advanced transmission technologies, reforming energy markets to maximize the benefits of clean energy technologies, and continuing to improve the interconnection process. We look forward to working with Commissioners Chang, Rosner and See on future Commission actions to accelerate the clean energy transition while improving reliability and achieving greater cost savings.”

The vote will give Democrats a working majority on the commission until at least June 2026, when the term of Democratic Chairman Willie Phillips is set to expire.

“A fully seated, bipartisan FERC provides more opportunity for advancing long-lasting, sensible energy infrastructure policy,” said West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat-turned-independent who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

“When it comes to fairly assessing all interests, five heads are better than one,” Manchin said Wednesday. “Bringing together five different people, with five different life experiences and perspectives, helps ensure that all affected interests will be heard and fairly considered and assessed” by the energy commission.

Rosner, See and Chang “are very different people, from very different backgrounds,” said Manchin, who supported all three nominees. “What matters most is their willingness to work with one another, to consider and assess fairly different interests and points of view, and to put partisan passions aside in favor of the public interest.”

Rosner, a former FERC staffer, has spent the past two years on Manchin’s Democratic staff on the energy committee. See, who serves as solicitor general for the state of West Virginia, argued the state’s case challenging a major U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule on power plant pollution before the Supreme Court. Chang, of Massachusetts, is a former undersecretary of energy and climate solutions for the state government.

Manchin said he knows Rosner well: “I have seen firsthand his expert knowledge on energy issues, his fairness, his nonpartisan approach to every problem we’ve had, and his ability to work with both sides on these issues, and he’s done that tremendously.”

Manchin, a political moderate who plays a crucial role on energy issues, called See “a very capable and experienced lawyer” who is “well-qualified to serve on the commission.”

Chang, who now teaches at Harvard’s Kennedy School, led energy policy under Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. “I can think of no better preparation for serving on a bipartisan commission than working for a Republican administration in a very blue state,” Manchin said.

Rosner’s nomination was approved, 67-27, See won approval, 83-12, and Chang was approved, 63 to 33.

Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia opposed both nominations, saying he continued to be unhappy about federal approval of the Mountain Valley Pipeline, a longtime Manchin priority.

“I voted no on rubber-stamping the same old people to FERC,” Kaine said in a statement.

COLSTRIP, Mont. (AP) — Actions by President Joe Biden’s administration that could hasten closures of heavily polluting coal power plants and the mines that supply them are reviving Republican rhetoric about a so-called “war on coal” ahead of the November election.

The front line in the political battle over the fuel is in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana, a sparsely populated section of the Great Plains with the nation’s largest coal mines. It’s also home to a massive power plant in Colstrip, Montana, that emits more toxic air pollutants such as lead and arsenic than any other U.S. facility of its kind, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The EPA last month finalized a suite of rules that could force the Colstrip Generating Station to shut down or spend an estimated $400 million to clean up its emissions within the next several years. Another proposal, from the U.S. Interior Department, would end new leasing of taxpayer-owned coal reserves in the Powder River Basin, clouding the future of mines including Westmoreland Mining’s Rosebud Mine that provides about 6 million tons of fuel annually for Colstrip.

Eight years ago during his first White House run, Donald Trump stoked populist anger against government regulation by highlighting anti-coal measures taken under former President Barack Obama. The latest moves against coal have teed up the issue again for Republicans seeking to unseat Biden in the November election. Some coal-state Democrats also raised concerns.

“This onslaught of new rules is going to kill jobs and will kill communities like Colstrip,” Montana Republican Sen. Steve Daines said during a visit to Rosebud Mine this week with Republican Gov. Greg Gianforte. “What will change this outcome is an election and a new administration.”

U.S. coal consumption dropped precipitously over the past decade as cheap natural gas and renewables expanded. Yet coal’s political potency endures as detractors try to further curb burning of the fuel that’s a major contributor to climate change and air pollution.

It remains an economic mainstay in communities such as Colstrip, generating jobs where workers can earn $100,000 annually, according to union officials.

The Biden administration defended the latest restrictions on coal as necessary to reduce harmful pollutants, improve public health and address court rulings over climate change.

A Biden campaign representative noted that coal’s decline continued during Trump’s presidency.

“There is no war on coal, there is only a fight for our energy future,” campaign spokesperson James Singer said. “Under President Biden, the United States is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades.”

Even with the ban on new coal leases, companies already hold leases on more than 4 billion tons of coal on taxpayer-owned lands. And administration officials say that’s enough to sustain mining for decades.

Supporters said the crackdown on pollution from coal plants was long overdue. Its origins trace to 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act that directed the EPA to set standards for pollution reduction technologies.

Dr. Robert Merchant, a pulmonologist from Billings, Montana, said research data is clear that pollution from Colstrip and other plants is linked to medical problems including cancers, developmental delays in children and heart attacks.

“The problem with Colstrip or any large industry like that is they’re very good at understanding the economics as it impacts their balance sheets and bottom line,” Merchant said. “Unfortunately, the health effects are not appearing on their bottom line.”

Representatives of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe had urged the Biden administration to adopt the pollution rules to protect air quality on their reservation just south of Colstrip.

The plant opened in the mid-1970s and was later expanded. It towers over Colstrip, a town of about 2,000 people. It’s linked to the Rosebud Mine by miles of conveyor belts that transport a steady supply of coal to the 1,480 megawatt plant, where it is burned to generate electricity for distribution across the state.

Brian Bird, president of Colstrip co-owner NorthWestern Energy, said the characterization of Colstrip by EPA Administrator Michael Regan during Congressional hearings as the “highest emitter in the country” was deceptive because of the plant’s size — one of the largest coal plants west of the Mississippi River. Bird said Colstrip was “in the middle of the pack” in terms of the amount of pollution per megawatt of power generated.

Some Democrats said federal agencies were moving too fast and too aggressively against coal.

Montana Democratic Sen. Jon Tester said the EPA rules “missed the mark” since it could cost hundreds of millions of dollars for Colstrip to come into compliance. In West Virginia — the second largest coal producer behind Wyoming — Sen. Joe Manchin accused Biden of trying to “score short-term political points” by issuing the new rules in an election year.

Manchin announced Friday that he was leaving the Democratic party and registering as an independent, citing the “partisan extremism” of the two major political parties.

Tester is considered one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the Senate heading into the election, with Republicans needing to pick up just two seats to retake control of the chamber.

His Republican challenger, Tim Sheehy, railed against the “Biden Tester climate cult” following announcement of the ban on new coal leases. Tester spokesperson Eli Cousin said the lawmaker was still reviewing the administration’s proposal.

Manchin is not seeking reelection when his term ends in January. Republican Gov. Jim Justice is running for the seat, and the EPA rules could help push voters into his corner as he faces Democrat Glenn Elliott, the mayor of Wheeling, West Virginia.

Elliott has advocated for more green energy in West Virginia but hasn’t commented on the EPA rules.

EPA officials pledged to work with the Colstrip plant’s owners “to help them find a path forward” in response to concerns from by Tester and other lawmakers. Agency officials said 93% of coal-fired plants had shown they could comply with the new air pollution standards.

“We gave plants the maximum amount of time to comply with the standards we are allowed to under the Clean Air Act — three years plus the possibility of a one-year extension,” EPA spokesperson Shayla Powell said in a statement.

___

Associated Press reporters Matthew Daly in Washington and Leah Willingham in Charleston, West Virginia, contributed to this story.