# 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 well 

### mixed 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 (CO 2) • Methane (CH 4) • Nitrous Oxide (N 2O ) • Hydrofluorocarbons (HFC) • Perfluorocarbons (PFC) • Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6)

# 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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 CO 2 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


### • 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 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 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 17

# States Have Flexibility

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 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 : 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.

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 October 16, 2014

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

## EPA- HQ-OAR- 2013 -0602

21