CLEAN POWER PLAN

Proposal to Reduce 

Carbon Pollution From 

Existing Power Plants

Georgia Environmental Seminar

Jekyll Island, GA

August 20-22, 2014

Carol Kemker, Deputy Director

Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division

U.S. EPA Region 4
Outline

• Part 1 – Brief summary of EPA efforts to regulate GHGs

• Part 2 – Overview of proposed 111(b) and 111(d) rules

o Summary of Proposal

o Setting State Goals

o Next Steps

2
PART 1

3
U.S. GHG Pollution

4
EPA Actions to Address Greenhouse Gases

• Some Key actions 

• Regulatory

• GHG Emissions Reporting

• Endangerment Finding

• Renewable Fuels Standard

• Mobile Source Standards

• Tailoring Rule

• Carbon Capture & Sequestration

• NSPS for new/existing power plants

• Other Efforts

• Energy Efficiency

• Renewable Energy

• Various Voluntary Initiatives

5
EPA’s Endangerment Finding

• Endangerment Finding: 

Current and projected concentrations of 

the six key well-mixed GHGs in the 

atmosphere threaten the public health and 

welfare of current and future generations

• Cause or Contribute Finding: 

The combined emissions of these wellmixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and 

new motor vehicle engines contribute to 

the greenhouse gas pollution which 

threatens public health and welfare

• Final Rule published in Federal 

Register December 15, 2009

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

• Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 

• Methane (CH4)

• Nitrous Oxide (N2O)

• Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC)

• Perfluorocarbons (PFC)

• Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)
Mobile Source GHG/CAFE Standards

• Final rule (published 5/7/10) - Passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty 

passenger vehicles, model years 2012 through 2016

• Average 250 grams CO2 per mile, 35.5 mpg in model year 2016

• Final rule (published 9/15/11) - Medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles, 

model years 2014 through 2018

• Estimated combined standards will reduce CO2 emissions by about 270 million metric tons 

and save about 530 million barrels of oil over the life of vehicles built for the 2014 to 2018 

model years, providing $49 billion in net program benefits

• Final rule (issued 8/28/2012) –

Extends passenger vehicle program 

to model year 2017 through 2025

• Average163 grams CO2 per mile, 

54.5 mpg in model year 2025

http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm#1-1

21
Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2)

• Revision to current RFS (RFS1) 

as required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act 

(EISA)

• Significant increase in renewable fuels

to displace petroleum consumption 

(36 billion gallons by 2022)

• Requires GHG lifecycle analysis

• Original Rule published 3/26/10

Lifecycle GHG Thresholds Specified in EISA

(percent reduction from 2005 baseline for 

gasoline and diesel)

Renewable fuel* 20%

Advanced biofuel 50%

Biomass-based 

diesel 50%

Cellulosic biofuel 60%

*The 20% criterion generally applies to renewable 

fuel from new facilities that commenced construction 

after December 19, 2007.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/renewablefuels/index.htm

22
The Tailoring Rule

• Final Rule issued May 13, 2010 

• Establishes thresholds for GHG emissions and 

defines when permits under the New Source Review 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

and Title V Operating Permit programs are 

required for new and existing industrial facilities

• “Tailors" the requirements to limit which facilities 

will be required to obtain PSD and Title V permits

• Includes the nation's largest GHG emitters -- power plants, refineries, and cement production 

facilities

http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ghgpermitting.html 

14
• On March 27, 2012, EPA proposed (but did not finalize) the first Clean Air Act standard for 

carbon pollution from new fossil-fuel-fired EGUs

• Included fossil‐fuel‐fired boilers, integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) units and stationary 

combined cycle turbine units that generate electricity for sale and are larger than 25 megawatts (MW)

• An output‐based standard of 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt‐hour 

(lb CO2/MWh gross)

President’s NEW (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
• Applies only to new fossil fuel-fired electric utility generating units (EGUs), including utility 

boilers, IGCC units and certain natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbine EGUs that 

generate electricity for sale and are larger than 25 megawatts (MW) 

• Proposed limits for fossil fuel-fired utility boilers and IGCC units are based on the 

performance of a new efficient coal unit implementing partial carbon capture and storage 

(CCS); EPA is proposing two limits, depending on the compliance period that best suites the 

unit:

• 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross over a 12-operating month period, or 

• 1,000-1,050 lb CO2/MWh-gross over an 84-operating month (7-year) period 

• For natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines, the proposed limits are based on the 

performance of modern natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units. EPA is proposing two 

standards for natural gas-fired stationary combustion units, depending on size:

• 1,000 pounds of CO2 per megawatt-hour (lb CO2/MWh-gross) for larger units (>850 mmBtu/hr) 

• 1,100 lb CO2/MWh-gross for smaller units (≤850 mmBtu/hr) 

(New natural gas-fired stationary combustion turbines can meet the proposed standard 

without the need for add-on control technology.)

GHG NSPS for New Fossil Fuel-Fired Power Plants

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

15
PART 2

12
This proposal will: 

• Reduce carbon pollution from existing power plants, for which there are currently no national 

limits

• Maintain an affordable, reliable energy system

• 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 

• 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

13

Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
• 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

14

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan
Background: Clean Air Act Section 111(d)

Best System of Emission Reduction

15

• 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

• In 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 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 – a statewide number for the future carbon intensity of covered existing 

fossil-fuel-fired power plants in a state

• The state goal rate 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

16

Georgia’s Proposed Goal is 834 lbs of CO2 per MWh
Building 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 sourcesRenewable 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

17
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

18

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
Flexibilities Available To States

• Timing: 

o Up to 15-year window in 

which to plan for and achieve 

reductions in carbon pollution. 

o Up 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: 

oStates will choose how to meet 

the goal through whatever 

collection of measures reflects 

its particular circumstances and 

policy objectives. 

oState measures may impact and, 

in fact may be explicitly 

designed to reduce, CO2

emissions from utilities on a 

regional basis.

oEPA would support building off 

existing reduction programs. 

19
20

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 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 28th in Denver, Atlanta, 

Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. – over 2,700 people attended

• Comments are due October 16, 2014

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

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602

21