This E&E Interactive Project requires a modern browser with Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) support.

Draft rule reduction: 10.6% (211 lbs CO2 / MWh)

Editor's note: The following summary represents state and utility stances after the Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016.

"As it looks today, I think we're going to step back" on potential efforts to comply with the U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan, Dave Glatt, chief of the environmental health section at the North Dakota Department of Health, said soon after the Supreme Court stay.

"There's a lot of good information that we've collected to date, and we're going to keep the dialogue going with the utilities, the environmental groups and other parties about what makes sense in terms of crafting a state energy plan going forward," Glatt said.

North Dakota remains open to developing "a common-sense carbon reduction strategy," just not under the Clean Power Plan, he said.

The state saw its emission reduction goals leap fourfold in the final rule. The state filed a lawsuit challenging the rule when it was published in the Federal Register, independent of a separate, 24-state lawsuit filed on the same day.

Many of the state's elected leaders and power companies agreed that implementing EPA's emission reduction targets will be a challenge.

North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) said, "We know already, no matter how hard we try, there is no way that we can achieve the 45 percent reduction in the time frame that they're talking about" and acknowledged that participating in some form of carbon trading is "where we could eventually wind up" if the state were to meet its emission reduction targets.

Julie Fedorchak, chairwoman of the North Dakota Public Service Commission, was disappointed that EPA extended the start of the compliance period by two years, from 2020 to 2022. She wanted a five-year delay to build up wind power in the state.

"I think that given time, we can do this in a natural way and ease our electric grid into a more clean, less carbon-intensive power supply," she said.

North Dakota was developing a state implementation plan as it pursued a legal challenge to the rule, concluding a public comment period on the state's compliance strategy in December 2015. The state was poised to request an extension from EPA and submit is final state compliance plan in 2018.

Bismarck-based Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. expressed "significant concern" about the state's ability to meet EPA's targets.

"Montana-Dakota anticipates that additional electric and natural gas transmission infrastructure are needed in order to implement the new resources required for compliance," explaining it would take five to seven years to install the needed infrastructure.

"If the infrastructure is not in place by the time a new resource is needed, either reliability of the electric system will be at risk or compliance with the CPP Rule may be at risk," Montana-Dakota wrote.

Nonetheless, Montana-Dakota and other power companies urged the state to craft its own compliance plan to avoid EPA imposing a federal plan on the state. It and several others urged the Department of Health to consider allowing power plants to participate in some form of an interstate carbon trading system as part of its state compliance plan.

Last updated on July 15, 2016 at 8:08 AM

For questions or comments about E&E’s Power Plan Hub or related stories, please email

Latest Stories and Videos


MISO urged to disclose power plant shutdown notices

No matter how the Donald Trump presidency plays out, or whether the Clean Power Plan survives, the Midwest power grid will see dozens of older coal-fired power plants shut down in the next few years. The region's grid operator, the Midcontinent Independent System Operator (MISO), can keep plants running if they are necessary to keep the lights on. But when it comes to knowing which ones will close, and when, will the public be left in the dark?


700 years of N.D. coal vs. a climate rule

BISMARCK, N.D. — Cartwheeling wind turbines dot the green prairies outside North Dakota's capital, and as the state's "energy trail" snakes northward, billowing coal plants pop up in the distance. The scenery is a reminder of the challenges ahead for North Dakota, a state whose deep reserves of fossil fuels stand in contrast to federal climate regulations with requirements to decrease the release of greenhouse gases.


How one Midwestern state is plowing ahead with climate rules

MINNEAPOLIS -- Frank Kohlasch, one of the lead architects of Minnesota's compliance strategy for the Obama administration's signature climate regulation, had just arrived at St. Cloud State University last Tuesday when news broke that the Supreme Court had slammed the brakes on the federal effort.


N.D. governor discusses two-track approach on power plan, shale oil's prospects amid price shift

With a 45 percent emissions rate reduction in the final Clean Power Plan, what are North Dakota's plans for complying as it manages a power sector that runs primarily on coal? During today's OnPoint, North Dakota Gov. Jack Dalrymple (R) discusses his state's compliance and litigation plans for the Clean Power Plan. He also talks about the challenges facing his state's shale oil industry following the rapid decline of oil prices.


Checking the variability of EPA's math leads some to question its Clean Power Plan

Under the Clean Power Plan -- U.S. EPA's ambitious proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants -- states are asked to meet widely divergent targets. Some, like North Dakota and Kentucky, would have to cut carbon intensity by less than 20 percent; others would have to hit reduction targets of more than 40 percent. Given the number of factors at play in determining each state's carbon intensity rate, the formula used by EPA is understandably complex. Over the past month and a half, state agencies have been working their way through it in order to recreate the agency's findings, and while most have found the basic formula to be sound, some are hesitating to endorse the logic behind it.

State Resources


DRAFT RULE Public Comments