CLEAN POWER PLAN PROPOS

Reducing Carbon Pollution From 

Existing Power Plants

Colleen McKaughan, Associate Director

Air Division, US EPA, Region 9

Navajo Nation Energy Summit

July 24, 2014
What is the Greenhouse Effe
Causes of Climate Change

Hum

The atmoconcentragreenhousincreased two centudue to hucarbon diofrom burnThis increamplified greenhoustrapping menergy emEarth. Thicauses Eatemperatuincrease.
President Obama’s Climate Action Plan: E

• Reducing carbon emissions 

from power plants

• Building a 21st century 

transportation sector

• Cutting energy waste in 

homes, businesses, and factories

• Reducing methane and HFCs• Leading international efforts 

to address global climate change
Reducing Carbon Pollution from Powe

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 plant

• Proposal: June 2014• Final: June 2015

3. Existing power plants

• Proposed Guidelines: June 2014• Final Guidelines: June 2015• State Plans due: June 2016
Why is EPA Proposing to Addres
Proposed Clean Power Plan

• On June 2, EPA proposed guidelines to cut carbon po

from existing power plants

• The proposal published in the Federal Register on Ju

• Common sense approach that will cut carbon polluti• By 2030, carbon emissions will reduced by 30% from 

levels

• Spur investment in cleaner and more efficient techn

creating jobs and driving innovation

• Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estima

billion to $93 billion in 2030 
• EPA proposed emission guidelines for states t

in developing plans to reduce CO2 emissions – State-specific, rate-based goals (pounds per MWh

power sector – Goals were based on the “Best System of EmissioReduction” or BSER

• Includes 2020-2029 Interim Goal Period and 

Goal to be achieved in 2030 and thereafter

• EPA intends to issue a supplemental proposa

addressing affected power plants on tribal laterritories in Fall 2014

Proposed Clean Power Plan
EPA Establishes a Goal for Every 

• EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that sta

utilities are already using to lower carbon pollution from thsector 

• Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, 

with state 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 

intensity of covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in 

– Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine h

pollution is emitted by fossil fuel power plants

– Accommodates the fact that CO

2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired 

are influenced by how efficiently they operate and by how much 

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

in each state and the application of the “building blocks” ththe best system of emission reduction
• Applied Four Building Blocks to 2012 emissio

• Building Block 1: Make fossil fuel-fired powe

more efficient

• Building Block 2: Increased use of lower-emit

power sources

• Building Block 3: Increased use of zero or low

energy sources

• Building Block 4: Use electricity more efficien

The Building Blocks
Building Block for BSER Strategy EPA Used 

to Calculate the State Goal

Examples of State Compliance Measures

1. Make fossil fuel-fired

power plants more efficient

Efficiency Improvements

• Efficiency improvem• Co-firing or switchin• Coal retirements• Retrofit CCS (e.g.,W

Texas)

2. Use lower-emitting 

power sources more

Dispatch changes to existing natural gas combined cycle (CC)

• Dispatch changes to 

natural gas CC

3. Build more zero or lowemitting energy 

sources

Renewable EnergyCertain Nuclear

• New Natural gas-fire

Cycle Units

• Renewables• Nuclear (new and u• New coal with CCS

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Demand-side energy efficiency programs

• Demand-side energ

programs

• Transmission efficie

improvements

• Energy storage

* States are not limited to the Building Blocks and have flexibidetermine how to meet their goal 
Flexibilities Available To States

Measures to meet Goal

• States may implement any collection of measu

reflect its particular circumstances and policy oas long the collection achieves the goal

• States can use a rate-based or a mass-based go• States have the option to collaborate with othe

to develop multi-state plans

Timing to Submit Plan and to Achieve Goal

• States have up to two to three years to submit 

EPA approval

• States have up to a 15-year window in which to 

and achieve goals 
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
Benefits and Costs

• Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would help reduce CO2 em

from the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 

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

that make people sick

• These reductions will lead to public health and climate b

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

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

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

• Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated a

costs of meeting the standards

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

• Proposal protects children and other vulnerable America

health threats posed by a range of pollutants

• Move us toward a cleaner environment for future genera• Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable pow

for economic growth 
Affected Power Plants in Indian 

• EPA did not propose goals for areas of Indian c

with affected power plants in the June 18 prop

• EPA is aware of four potentially affected powe

Indian country

– Four Corners Power Plant and Navajo Generating S

Navajo tribal lands within New Mexico and Arizona

– South Point Energy Center on Fort Mojave tribal la

Arizona

– Bonanza Power Plant on Ute tribal lands within Ut
Upcoming Supplemental Pro

• In the fall, EPA intends to publish a Supplem

Proposal to establish CO

2 emission perform

covering affected power plants located in Incountry and territories

• EPA intends to take final action by June 201• EPA will appropriately engage in governmen

government consultation with Tribes
Questions for Consideration

• Which Building Blocks should apply to goal-

for areas of Indian country?

• How can tribes without affected power plan

participate in the program (e.g., through reenergy or energy efficiency programs) to hegoals?

• What other issues we should be aware of?• Input can be provided to Pat Childers 

(childers.pat@epa.gov) or Laura McKelvey

(Mckelvey.laura@epa.gov) of the EPA Office of Quality Planning and Standards
Next Steps

• The proposed rule, as well as information abou

comment and supporting technical informationavailable online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

• EPA will hold 4 public hearings the week of July 

Denver, Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D

• The 120-day public comment period on the pro

closes October 16, 2014

• Comments on the proposal should be identifie

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

submitted through www.regulations.gov 

• Supplemental Proposal for tribal land and terri

with affected power plants in Fall 2014
Optional Slides
Carbon Pollution and Health

• Public health risks include: 

– Increase in heat stroke and heat-related deaths

• Extreme heat events are the leading weather-

cause of death in the U.S.

– Worsening smog and in some cases particle pollu– Increasing intensity of extreme events, like hurri

extreme precipitation and flooding

– Increasing the range of insects that spread diseas

as Lyme disease and West Nile virus.
Clean Power Plan: Proces
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 Timel

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