CLEAN POWER PLAN PROPOS

Reducing Carbon Pollution From 

Existing Power Plants

Deborah Jordan, Director

Air Division, US EPA, Region 9

California Legislature

September 12, 2014
This Proposal Deals With the 

Source of GHG Emissions in th
This proposal will: 

• Reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, for which t

currently no national limits.

• Maintain an affordable, reliable energy system.• By 2030, reduce nationwide carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, fro

sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels.

• Significant reductions begin by 2020. 

• Cut hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful particle pollution

dioxide and nitrogen oxides as a co-benefit. 

• Provide important health protections to the most vulnerable, su

children and older Americans. 

• Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 bill

billion in 2030. 

• From soot and smog reductions alone, for every dollar invested 

Clean Power Plan – American families will see up to $7 in health 

Summary
• Build on actions states, cities and businesses across the count

already taking to address the risks of climate change. 

• Spur investment in cleaner and more efficient technologies, c

and driving innovation.

• Require a reasonable emission reduction glidepath starting in 

• Provide a flexible timeline—up to 15 years from guideline issu

all emission reduction measures to be fully implemented in 2

• Recognizing that investments in infrastructure can take tim

place and 

• Avoiding stranded assets.

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

Summary (Cont’d)
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 u

already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector. 

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

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 in

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

• Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine how much carb

emitted by fossil fuel power plants.

• Accommodates the fact that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants 

by how efficiently they operate and by how much they operate. 

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

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

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

plantsCo-firing or switcgasCoal retirementsRetrofit CCS

2. Use lower-emitting power 

sources more

Dispatch changes to existing natural gas combined cycle (CC)

Dispatch changenatural gas CC

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

Nuclear (new anNew coal with C

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Demand-side energy efficiency programs

Demand-side enprogramsTransmission effimprovementsEnergy storage
Flexibilities Available to State

• Timing

– Compliance begins 2020; final compliance 20– Two or three years to develop plans

• Form of goal: States can use either a rate-

or mass-based goal.

• Although goals were set based on four 

components, States can use any mix of meto meet the goal.

• Single-state or multi-state plans
Next Steps

• Proposed rule and supporting documen

available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

• 120-day public comment period closes 

October 16, 2014.

• Final Action June 2015
Closing Thoughts

• Proposal uses consistent methodology 

establish CO2 goals across the U.S.

• Goals are tailored to each state’s fuel m

opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency investments.

• States can develop multi-state plans – t

additional time to do so

• California has flexibility to pursue path 

makes sense for California.