In 2009, the EPA adopted the Endangerment Finding, stating that CO2 is bad for human health. This finding has underpinned carbon regulation in the United States ever since. On February 12, 2026, the EPA announced its rescission of this policy, fundamentally rewriting the rules of the U.S. power market.
By stripping the legal prerequisite for carbon regulation under the Clean Air Act, the administration has signaled a “Dash for Gas,” effectively inviting a massive expansion of natural gas-fired generation.
However, a deeper dive into the fundamental physics of the grid and the logistics of fuel delivery reveals that this “dash” is merely sprinting toward a brick wall of infrastructure and timeline constraints.
Dismantling 111(b) and 111(d)
The rescission acts as a legal domino. Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act (regulating new sources) and Section 111(d) (existing sources) relied on the scientific conclusion that CO2 was a danger to public health. With that finding gone, the EPA has moved to repeal the 2024 carbon standards which mandated 90% Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) for baseload gas and coal plants.
By removing the “CCS mandate,” the cost and complexity of permitting new gas plants have plummeted. Utilities that were once wary of long-term carbon risk are now announcing massive tranches of new gas-fired capacity to meet surging demand from data centers and advanced manufacturing.
Policy vs. Reality: The Infrastructure Choke Point
Building new infrastructure is not an overnight solution: an investment in a new plant today will take 5 – 7 years to be operational. You can streamline permitting to an extent, but communities still have to buy in on build-outs that affect their surroundings. Add on top of that the complexity of global supply chains: currently, lead times for gas turbines are booking into 2030-2032 due to global demand.
Permitting & Siting: 18–24 months.
Turbine Manufacturing: Currently, lead times for large-frame gas turbines are booked out through 2030–2032 due to global demand.
Construction: 24–36 months.
The total lead time remains 5 to 7 years, meaning the “Dash for Gas” started today won’t deliver a single megawatt of relief until early next decade.
The “Firm” Wall
If that weren’t enough: while the policy gates are open, the pipelines are not. In much of the U.S., natural gas infrastructure is already operating at its physical limits. In the Mid-Atlantic (PJM) and Southeast, “Firm Transportation”—the guaranteed right to move gas through a pipe—is largely sold out. Reports from early 2026 indicate that 44 major interstate pipelines have recently issued restrictions or “Operational Flow Orders” (OFOs) to prevent system pressure collapse during peak ramps.
Even if a plant is approved and constructed, they will need to figure out how to lay more pipes to get gas to their plant. That is no easy task, with no clear solution.
Take New England, for example. The region remains a “gas island.” During peak winter events, such as the recent Winter Storm Fern, pipelines in ISO-New England are so congested that gas prices at the Algonquin hub spiked above $100/mmBtu, forcing the grid to rely on expensive and dirty oil-fired generation just to keep the lights on.
Nuclear: The Decade-Scale Op
Nuclear generation is often cited as the ultimate clean baseload alternative, but it suffers from even more extreme “time-to-market” friction.
Despite bipartisan efforts to streamline the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) processes, a typical Combined License (COL) application and review can still take 3 to 5 years.Much like natural gas, long construction timelines are an issue here, too. Utility-scale nuclear projects in the US have historically averaged 7 to 12 years from first concrete to commercial operation. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) promise to shorten this, but the first commercial units are not expected to reach the grid until 2028–2030 at the earliest. While nuclear provides a massive hedge against fuel volatility, it cannot address the immediate power crunch of the 2020s.
Renewables and Storage: The Swift, Fuel-Less Solution
Where gas and nuclear hit “time walls,” renewables and batteries offer the only immediate response to growing load.
A typical utility-scale solar farm can be physically constructed in 6 to 18 months, and wind farms in 1 to 3 years. These projects are slowed down only by the interconnection queue.
Increasingly, batteries are being deployed as a bridge. Battery storage is being deployed at unprecedented rates—over 15 GW added in 2025 alone. Storage can be containerized and deployed in under a year, offering the fastest path to firming up the grid and replacing capacity from retiring assets.
Most importantly: renewables and storage represent zero fuel risk.Unlike gas plants, which are subject to $100/mmBtu price spikes during storms, solar, wind, and storage require zero fuel. They convert atmospheric energy directly into electrons, making them the ultimate hedge against the infrastructure-driven volatility that is about to hit the gas market.
Conclusion: Volatility as an Incentive
We are currently in a high-stakes race. Renewable developers are racing to get projects “under construction” before July 4, 2026—the deadline established by the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) for the removal of legacy tax credits.
As the strain on the gas pipeline network becomes more apparent—often manifesting as extreme price volatility during heat waves and cold snaps—the economic case for fuel-less energy becomes increasingly relevant for large energy users seeking to manage long-term energy cost risk. In the post-Endangerment era, the grid’s greatest catalyst for the renewable transition may not be an EPA rule, but the physical inability of fossil fuel infrastructure to keep pace with demand.
REsurety’s Power Markets team, led by Mark O’Brien, is following this topic closely. For additional information or to speak to one of our experts, please complete the form below:
Contact
"*" indicates required fields
DISCLAIMER: This blog post contains information related to REsurety and the commodity interest derivatives
services and other services that REsurety provides. Any statements of fact in this presentation are derived from sources believed to be reliable, but are not guaranteed as to accuracy, nor do they purport to be complete. No responsibility is assumed with respect to any such statement, nor with respect to any expression of opinion which may be contained herein. The risk of loss in trading commodity interest derivatives contracts can be substantial. Each investor must carefully consider whether this type of investment is appropriate for them or their company. Please be aware that past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
This material is intended for informational purposes only. REsurety does not provide research reports as defined under CFTC Regulation 1.71, and this material should not be construed as a recommendation or advice with respect to any commodity interest transaction.