# CLEAN POWER PLAN

Proposal to Reduce Carbon Pollution From 

# Existing Power Plants Symposium on the EPA’s Proposed Rules

on Carbon Reduction Jacksonville, FL September 25, 2014 Kenneth L. Mitchell, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Atlanta, GA

# Climate Change and the SE

• Coastal communities in the Southeast will likely face sea level rise, increased hurricane intensity, and storm surge, among other climate change 

### impacts
• Higher temperatures, longer periods between rainfall events, and greater demand for water will likely strain water resources in the Southeast
• Incidences of extreme weather, increased temperatures, and flooding will likely impact human health
• Higher temperatures will likely affect the growth and productivity of crops and forests in the region
• Increasing the range of insects that spread diseases such as Lyme disease and West Nile 

### virus 2 Projected average number of days per year with maximum temperatures above 95 ° F for 2041 - 2070 compared to 1971 - 2000, assuming emissions continue to grow (A2 scenario). Patterns are similar, but less pronounced, assuming a reduced emissions scenario (B1). (Figure source: NOAA NCDC / CICS-NC).

# U.S. GHG Pollution

3

# EPA Actions to Reduce Carbon Pollution

• Building a 21 st 

# 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 • Helping lead international efforts to address global climate change • Reducing carbon pollution from power plants 4

### President’s June 2013 Directive to EPA: Develop carbon pollution standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for: 1. New power plants - Proposed January 8, 2014 2. Modified and reconstructed power plants • Proposed June 2014 • Final June 2015 3. Existing power plants • Proposed Guidelines June 2014 • Final Guidelines June 2015 • State Plans due June 2016 

### GHG NSPS Requirements for Fossil Fuel - Fired Power Plants

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan 15

### This proposal will:
• Reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, for which there are currently no national limits • Maintain an affordable, reliable energy system and will help m ove us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations • By 2030, reduce nationwide carbon dioxide emissions, from the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels, with significant reductions to begin by 2020 • Cut hundreds of thousands of tons of harmful particle pollution, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides as a co - benefit • Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030 • Provide important health protections to the most vulnerable, such as children and older Americans • Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030 • From soot and smog reductions alone, for every dollar invested through the Clean Power Plan -
- American families will see up to $7 in health benefits • Electricity bills down 8% in 2030 6 

# Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal

### • Build on actions states, cities and businesses across the country are already taking to address the risks of climate change
• Spur investment in cleaner and more efficient technologies, creating jobs and driving innovation
• Require a reasonable emission reduction glidepath starting in 2020
• Provide a flexible timeline — up to 15 years from guideline issuance — for all emission reduction measures to be fully implemented in 2030 o Recognizing that investments in infrastructure can take time to put in place and o Avoiding stranded assets 

### • Provide an array of tools states can use to formulate approvable plans 

## . 

## Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal

7

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

# Other Benefits

8 

# Electricity bills down 

# 8 % in 2030

$0 $20 $40 $60 $80 $100 $120

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Monthly Residential Electricity Bills (2011$)

Historical - Converted to 2011$ Base Case Clean Power Plan

# After Proposal, Coal & Natural Gas Remain Leading Sources of Electricity Generation

9 

### Each more than 30% of projected generation in 2030 

## Coal 31% Natural Gas 

## 32% Other Fuel 

## 37%

# Background: Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Best System of Emission Reduction

10 

### • Previous EPA rules under this section of the Clean Air Act have considered “add - on” control technologies – like scrubbers -- that are technically feasible to deploy at virtually any facility
• In contrast, there are a wide variety of ways to reduce carbon pollution that are commercially 

### available, technically feasible, and cost effective
• The opportunities vary from state to state, depending on how electricity is generated , energy infrastructure, and other factors


### • I n this proposal, EPA took an approach that viewed the Clean Air Act factors in determining Best System of Emission Reduction (BSER) in light of the interconnected nature of power generation 

### BSER factors
• Costs • Size of reductions • Technology • Feasibility

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

### • EPA conducted a robust pre - proposal stakeholder engagement process o Participated in meetings with over 300 utility, consumer, labor and environmental groups since June 2013 o 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 o 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  Modernizing the power sector is good for the economy
• Common themes included reliability, flexibility, 

### affordability, time for plans and implementation 11 

# Early Outreach Informed This Proposal

# EPA Establishes a Goal for Every State

• EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities are already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector
• Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula , calculated with state and regional specific information
• The result of the equation is the state goal
• Each state goal is a rate (pounds of CO 2 

### per MWh ) – a statewide number for the future carbon intensity of covered existing fossil -fuel -fired power plants in a state o Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine how much carbon pollution is emitted by fossil fuel power plants o Accommodates the fact that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel -fired power plants are influenced by how efficiently they operate and by how much they operate 12

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

# EPA Establishes a Goal for Every State
State Emission Rate Goal = (coal gen. x coal emission rate) + (OG gen. x OG emission rate) + (NGCC gen. x NGCC emission rate) + “Other” emissions

Coal gen. + OG gen. + NGCC gen. + “Other” gen. + Nuclear gen. uc + ar + RE gen. + EE gen.



### • The state rate goal is calculated to account for the mix of power sources in each state and the application of the “building blocks” that make up the best system of emission reduction
• States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal

13

Florida’s Proposed Final Goal is 740 lbs of CO 2 per MWhBuilding Block Strategy EPA Used to Calculate the State Goal Maximum Flexibility: Examples of State Compliance Measures 1. Make fossil fuel -fired power plants more efficient Efficiency Improvements • Efficiency improvements • Co -firing or switching to natural gas • Coal retirements • Retrofit carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) 2. Use lower- emitting power sources more Dispatch changes to existing natural gas combined cycle (CC) • Dispatch changes to existing natural gas CC 3. Build more zero/lowemitting energy sources Renewable Energy Certain Nuclear • New NGCC • Renewables • Nuclear (new and up rate) • New coal with CCS 4. Use electricity more efficiently Demand -side energy efficiency programs • Demand -side energy efficiency programs • Transmission efficiency improvements • Energy storage 14

# States Have Flexibility

15 Carbon emissions from affected power

plants in an example state 

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



### years, as long as on average it meets the goal

Timing of Power Plant Emission Reductions

# When States Plan , They Can...

• Look broadly across the power sector for strategies that get reductions • Choose to rely to varying degrees on measures that EPA used to calculate the goal, or on other measures that were not part of the state goal -setting analysis • Invest in existing energy efficiency programs or create new ones • Consider market trends toward improved energy efficiency and a greater reliance on lower carbon energy • Tap into investments already being made to upgrade aging infrastructure • Expand renewable energy capacity • Integrate their plans into existing power sector planning processes • Design plans that use innovative, cost - effective regulatory strategies • Develop a state -only plan or collaborate with each other to develop plans on a multi state basis • Decide how to treat plants nearing the end of their useful life and how to help plants avoid “stranded investments” 16

# Flexibilities Available To States

• Timing o Up to 15 -year window in which to plan for and achieve reductions in carbon pollution o U p to two or three years to submit final plans 

### • Form of goal o States can use either a rate - based or mass- based goal 

### • Single or multi -state plans o States can collaborate and develop plans on a multi - state basis 

### • Selection of measures o States will choose how to meet the goal through whatever collection of measures reflects its particular circumstances and policy objectives o State measures may impact and, in fact may be explicitly designed to reduce, CO 2 emissions from utilities on a regional basis o EPA would support building off existing reduction programs 17 http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

# States Choose How to Meet the Goals

• 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 at higher

### emitting plants * • Market- based trading programs • Building new renewables • Dispatch changes 

### • Co-firing or switching to natural gas • Building new natural gas combined cycle units

* Measures EPA used in calculating the state goals

18 http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

# Details About State Plans

• EPA will provide a list of about a dozen components that will need to be included in the plan
• Measures to meet the state’s interim goal and final goal o Interim goal -- meet on average over a 10-year period from 2020- 2029 o Final goal -- meet in 2030 and thereafter
• Individual and multi -state plans due June 30, 2016
• Proposed timing of extensions to submit a complete plan, if justified and supported: o Submit initial plan by June 30, 2016 o Individual state plans: a one -year extension (June 30, 2017) o Multi -state plans: a two -year extension (June 30, 2018 )
1920 By June 30, 2016 State submits initial multi state 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 multi state 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 m ulti -state P lan by June 30, 2016 and request 2 -year extension Emission Guideline Promulgation June 1, 2015 by June 30, 2016

State submits n egative 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 2019 

# Proposed Implementation Timeline

Compliance period begins 2020 2020

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 reviews plan and publishes final decision within 12 months on approval/disapproval 2016 2017 2018

# Next Steps

• The proposed rule, as well as information about how to comment and supporting technical information, are available online at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
• EPA held 4 public hearings the week of July 28 th 

### in Denver , Atlanta , Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. – over 2,700 people attended


### • Comments are due December 1, 2014
• Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA- HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

# Questions? Ken Mitchell; mitchell.ken@epa.gov; 404- 562 -9065 21