# CLEAN POWER PLAN

Proposed Carbon Pollution Standards For Existing 

# Power Plants Shutsu Wong 

### EPA Region 1 A&WMA- NES Fall 2014 Conference October 10, 2014

# Outline

• President’s Climate Action Plan • Background on Clean Air Act Section 111(d) 

## • Setting State Goals • Flexibilities Available to States • Costs and Benefits • How to comment

2

# President’s Climate Action Plan

• Reduce carbon pollution from power plants
• Prepare the U.S. for the impacts of climate change
• Lead international efforts to 

## address global climate change

3

# This Proposal Deals With the Largest Source of GHG Emissions in the U.S.

4

# Reducing Carbon Pollution From Power Plants President’s 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 • Proposal: June 2014 • Final : June 2015 

## 3. Existing power plants • Proposed Guidelines: June 2014 • Final Guidelines: June 2015 • State Plans due: June 2016

5

## • Establishes a mechanism for controlling air pollution from stationary sources
• Applies to sources for which the Administrator, in her judgment, 

### finds “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare” • Can apply to new, existing, modified and reconstructed sources. 

## • More than 70 stationary source categories and subcategories are currently regulated under section 111
• A full list of sources regulated under section 111 can be found in 40 CFR Part 60
6 

# EPA’s Regulatory Approach Clean Air Act Section 111

## • Lays out different approaches for new and existing sources • New sources under section 111(b) • Federal standards for new, modified and reconstructed sources 

## • Existing sources under section 111(d) • State programs for existing sources that are equivalent to federal guidelines 

## • Applies the “Best System of Emissions Reduction ” (BSER) • Feasibility • Costs • Technology • Size of Reductions 7 

# EPA’s Regulatory Approach Clean Air Act Section 111

# States and Communities with Programs That Reduce Carbon Pollution

State programs that reduce carbon include carbon cap and trade programs and energy efficiency and renewable energy standards or goals. 8Building 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 CCS (e.g.,WA Parish in Texas) 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 - rates) New coal with CCS 4. Use electricity more efficiently Demand -side energy efficiency programs Demand -side energy efficiency programs Transmission efficiency improvements Energy storage 9

# State Performance Goals (lbs/ MWh )

State 2012 Fossil

Emission Rate 1 Interim Goal (2020 - 2029 average) 2 Final Goal (2030

and thereafter) 2 Connecticut 844 597 540 Maine 873 393 378 Massachusetts 1,001 655 576 New Hampshire 1,119 546 486 Rhode Island 918 822 782
10 1 From Goal Computation Technical Support Document, Appendix 5 – 2012 Emissions Rate and Building Block Application 2 From Table 1 to Subpart UUUU of Part 60 – State Rate -Based CO2 Emission Performance Goals, Proposed

# Flexibilities Available To States

• Timing: • Up to 15 -year window in which to plan for and achieve reductions in carbon pollution. • U p to two or three years to submit final plans. • Form of goal: States can use either a rate - based or mass - based goal. • Single or multi -state plans: States can collaborate and develop plans on a multi -state basis. • Selection of measures : • States will choose how to meet the goal through whatever collection of measures reflects its particular circumstances and policy objectives. • State measures may impact and, in fact may be explicitly designed to reduce, CO 2 emissions from utilities on a regional basis. • EPA would support building off existing reduction programs.

11

# 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 higheremitting plants. * • Market- based trading programs. • Building new renewables. • Dispatch changes. • Co -firing or switching to natural gas. • Building new natural gas combined cycle units.

* M easures EPA used in calculating the state goals

12

# States Have Flexibility

13 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 Reductions22% 12%

-20%

-71%

-93% -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40%

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

## New England Economic Growth and ISO New England

System Emissions, 1999 - 2012

New England GDP Total Generation CO2 Emissions NOx Emissions SO2 Emissions Data Sources: 2012 ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report, US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis

# Benefits and Costs

• Estimated costs of the plan are $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030. 

### • Estimated benefits by 2030 • CO2 emissions from the power sector reduced by approximately 30% from 2005 levels. • Pollutants that contribute to the soot and smog reduced by over 25% • Avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths • Avoid 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks • These reductions will lead to public health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030. 

### • Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated annual costs of meeting the standards. • Proposal protects children and other vulnerable Americans from the health threats posed by a range of pollutants. 

### • Move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. • Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable power needed for economic growth. 15

# Commenting on the Proposal

• The proposed rule, as well as information about how to comment 

### and supporting technical information, are available online at: http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan



### • The comment period has been extended to December 1, 2014.

• Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID No.

EPA- HQ- OAR- 2013 -0602 .

1617 

# For more information

http:// www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan