Proposed

CLEAN POWER PLAN

Reducing Carbon Pollution Fro

Existing Power Plants

California Environmental Dialogue - Plenary

Anita Lee, Air Division, US EPA, Region 9

July 23, 2014
Outline

• Summary of Proposal• Background on Clean Air Act Section 111(d)• Pre-proposal Outreach & What We Heard• Setting State Goals• State Plans for Meeting Goals• Costs and Benefits• Next Steps
• Reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, for wh

currently no national limits.

• Significant reductions achieved over a glide path beginning 

• By 2030, reduce nationwide carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels.

• Build on actions states, cities and businesses across the cou

already taking to address the risks of climate change. 

• Provide an array of tools states can use to formulate approv

• Maintain an affordable, reliable energy system.• Spur investment in cleaner and more efficient technologies

jobs and driving innovation.

• Recognize that investments in infrastructure can take time t

place and avoid stranded assets.

Summary of Proposal
Carbon Pollution and Health

• Public health risks include: 

• Increase in heat stroke and heat-related deaths

• Extreme heat events are the leading weather-related cause of death 

• Worsening smog (also called ground-level ozone pollution) an

cases, particle pollution

• Increasing intensity of extreme events, like hurricanes, extrem

precipitation and flooding

• Increasing the range of insects that spread diseases such as L

and West Nile virus.

4
Actions to Reduce Carbon Pollut

•Building a 21st century 

transportation sector

• Cutting energy waste in homes, 

businesses, and factories

•Reducing methane and HFCs• Preparing the U.S. for the impacts 

of climate change

• Leading international efforts to 

address global climate change

•Reducing carbon pollution from 

power plants

5
Reducing Carbon Pollution From Pow

President’s Directive to EPA:Develop carbon pollution standards, regulaguidelines, as appropriate, for:

1. New power plants

• Proposed: January 8, 2014

2. Modified and reconstructed power plants

• Proposal: June 2014• Final: June 2015

3. Existing power plants

• Proposed Guidelines: June 2014• Final Guidelines: June 2015• State Plans due: June 2016

6
Background: Clean Air Act Section 111

Best System of Emission Reduction

• Previous EPA rules under this section of the Clean Air Act hav

considered “add-on” control technologies – like scrubbers -- ttechnically feasible to deploy at virtually any facility. 

• In contrast, there are a wide variety of ways to reduce carbon 

that are commercially available, technically feasible, and cost 

• The opportunities vary from state to state, depending on how 

is generated, energy infrastructure, and other factors. 

• In this proposal, EPA took an approach that viewed the Clean 

factors in determining Best System of Emission Reduction in linterconnected nature of power generation.

• BSER factors

• Costs• Size of reductions • Technology• Feasibility
• EPA conducted a robust pre-proposal 

stakeholder engagement process.

• Participated in meetings with over 300 utility, 

consumer, labor and environmental groups since June2013.

• Held 11 public listening sessions around the country.

• 3,300 people attended.

• More than 1,600 people offered oral statements.

• Reached out to all 50 states.

• Some states noted their programs to address carbon 

evolved because of:

• The need to address carbon pollution;

• Electric system that is dynamic, and in the midst of 

market changes; and

• Modernizing the power sector is good for the economy.

• Common themes included reliability, flexibility, 

affordability, time for plans and implementation. 

Early Outreach Informed This Pro
States and Communities with 

Programs That Reduce Carbon Pollu

State programs that reduce carbon include carbon cap and trade programs and energy efficiency and renewable energy standards or goals. 
EPA Establishes a Goal for Every 

• EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and 

already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector. 

• Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, calculat

and regional specific information. 

• The result of the equation is the state goal. • Each state goal is a rate – a statewide number for the future carbon 

covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in a state.

• Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine how 

pollution is emitted by fossil fuel power plants.

• Accommodates the fact that CO

2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired po

are influenced by how efficiently they operate and by how much th

• The state goal rate is calculated to account for the mix of power sou

state and the application of the “building blocks” that make up the of emission reduction.

• States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal.
States Have Flexibility

Basis for state goal – Potential emissions pathway reflecting EPA’s analysis

 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029

A state can choose any trajectory of emission improvement as long as the interim performance goal is met on average over 10 years, and the final goal is met by 2030 

Carbon emissions from affected power 

plants in an example state

As an example, states could do less in the early years, and more 

years, as long as on average it meets the goal

Timing of Power Plant Emission Reductions
Building Block Strategy EPA Used to 

Calculate the State Goal

Maximum 

Examples 

Compliance 

1. Make fossil fuel-fired

power plants more efficient

Efficiency Improvements • Efficiency imp

• Co-firing or sw

natural gas

• Coal retireme• Retrofit CCS 

Parish in Texa

2. Use lower-emitting power 

sources more

Dispatch changes to existing natural gas combined cycle (CC)

• Dispatch cha

natural gas C

3. Build more zero/lowemitting energy sources Renewable Energy Certain Nuclear • New NGCC • Renewables

• Nuclear (new • New coal with 

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Demand-side energy efficiency programs

• Demand-side 

efficiency pro

• Transmission 

improvement

• Energy storag
When States Plan, They Can

• Look broadly across the power sector for strategies that get re

• Choose to rely to varying degrees on measures that EPA used 

the goal, or on other measures that were not part of the state setting analysis. 

• Invest in existing energy efficiency programs or create new on

• Consider market trends toward improved energy efficiency an

reliance on lower carbon energy. 

• Tap into investments already being made to upgrade aging inf

• Expand renewable energy capacity.• Integrate their plans into existing power sector planning proce

• Design plans that use innovative, cost-effective regulatory stra• Develop a state-only plan or collaborate with each other to de

on a multi-state basis.

• Decide how to treat power plants nearing the end of their use

how to help plants avoid “stranded investments.”
Flexibilities Available To State

• Timing: 

• Up to two or three years to 

submit final plans. 

• Up to 15-year window in 

which to plan for and achieve reductions in carbon pollution. 

• Form of goal: States can use 

either a rate-based or massbased goal.

• Single or multi-state plans: 

States can collaborate and develop plans on a multistate basis.

• Selection of measur

• States will choose ho

meet the goal througwhatever collection measures reflects its circumstances and pobjectives. 

• State measures may 

and, in fact may be edesigned to reduce, 

emissions from utilitregional basis.

• EPA would support b

existing reduction pr
States Choose How to Meet the 

• Demand-side energy efficiency 

programs.

*

• Generating electricity from 

low/zero-emitting facilities.* 

• Expanding use of existing NGCC 

units.

*

• Transmission efficiency 

improvements.

• Energy storage technology.• Working with utilities to consider 

retiring units that are high emitting. 

• Energy conservation programs.• Retrofitting units with partial CCS.

• Use of certain biomass.• Efficiency improvements 

emitting plants.

*

• Market-based trading pr• Building new renewables• Dispatch changes.• Co-firing or switching to • Building new natural gas 

cycle units.

* Measures EPA used in calculatingoals
Details About State Plans

• EPA provided a list of about a dozen components tha

need to be included in the plan.

• Measures to meet the state’s interim goal and final g

• Interim goal -- average over a 10-year period from 2020-202

• Final goal -- meet in 2030 and thereafter.

• Individual and multi-state plans due June 30, 2016.

• Proposed timing of extensions to submit a complete 

justified and supported:

• Submit initial plan by June 30, 2016;• Individual state plans: a one-year extension (June 30, 

and

• Multi-state plans: a two-year extension (June 30, 201
Next Steps

• Proposed rule and supporting documents avail

online at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerpla

• 4 public hearings the week of July 28th in Denv

Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C.

• 120-day public comment period closes Octobe

2014.

• Comments on the proposal should be identifie

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. 

• Final Action June 2015
Additional Slides
This Proposal Deals With the 

Source of GHG Emissions in th
• Cut hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful particle 

sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as a co-benefit.

• Provide important health protections to the most vuln

such as children and older Americans. 

• Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimate

billion to $93 billion in 2030. 

• From soot and smog reductions alone, for every dollar 

through the Clean Power Plan – American families will $7 in health benefits. 

Summary (continued)
By June 30, 2016

State submits initial multistate plan and request for 2-

year extension

EPA reviews initial plan 

and determines if 

extension is warranted

by June 30, 2017

State submits progress 

report of plan

by June 30, 2018

States submits multistate plan

State submits Negative Declaration

State submits complete implementation Plan by June 30, 2016

State submits initial Plan by June 30, 2016 and request 1-year extension

State submits initial multi-state Plan by June 30, 2016 and request 2-year extension

Emission 

Guideline 

Promulgation

June 1, 2015

by June 30, 2016

State submits negative 

declaration

EPA publishes FR notice

by June 30, 2016

State submits plan

by June 30, 2016

State submits initial plan 

and request for 1-year 

extension

EPA reviews initial plan and 

determines if extension is 

warranted

by June 30, 2017

State submits complete plan

2015 2

Proposed Implementation Timeli

EPA reviews plan and 

publishes final decision 

within 12 months on 

approval/disapproval

EPA reviews plan and 

publishes final decision 

within 12 months on 

approval/disapproval

EPA rev

publishe

within 1

approva

2016 2017 2018
Benefits and Costs

• Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would help reduce CO

2 emiss

the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels.

• Also by 2030, reduce by over 25% pollutants that contribute to the 

smog that make people sick. 

• These reductions will lead to public health and climate bene

an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030. 

• Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature d

140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030.

• Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated ann

meeting the standards.

• Estimated at $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030. 

• Proposal protects children and other vulnerable Americans 

health threats posed by a range of pollutants.

• Move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for futu

generations. 

• Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable power 

economic growth.
Other Impacts

Electricity bills dow

8% in 2030

$0

$20$40$60$80

$100$120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2

Monthly Residential Electricity Bills (20

Historical - Converted to 2011$ Base Case 
After Proposal, Coal & Natural Gas Rem

Leading Sources of Electricity Generatio

Each more than 30% of projected generation in 203