# EPA’s Proposed

Clean Power Plan DOE WINDExchange Summit

Cocoa, FL May 18, 2015 Ken Mitchell, Ph.D. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Atlanta, GA2 

# Some Key Efforts Under the CAA

• Cleaning Up Outdoor Air 

## • NAAQS pollutants (e.g ., Ozone, PM), Regional Haze, air toxics, acid rain
• Cleaner vehicles, engines, and the fuels that power them
• Addressing Climate change
• Protecting the stratospheric ozone layer
• Indoor air is also a focus of OAR efforts, 

## but not explicitly addressed in the CAA

http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/

# U.S. GHG Pollution

3

### • Although there are limits at power plants for other pollutants like arsenic and

mercury , there are currently no national limits on carbon 

# GHG NSPS Requirements for Fossil Fuel - Fired Power Plants

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

## Using the Section 111 of the Clean Air Act, EPA is working to develop carbon pollution standards, regulations or guidelines, as appropriate, for: 1. New power plants • Proposed January 8, 2014 • Final Summer 2015 2. Modified and reconstructed power plants • Proposed June 2014 • Final Summer 2015 3. Existing power plants • Proposed Guidelines June 2014 • Final Guidelines Summer 2015 • State Plans due Summer 2016 • Proposed Federal Plan summer 2015 (final ready summer 2016) 

# Carbon Pollution Standards for the Power Sector

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

15

### This Clean Power Plan (CPP) 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 

### • Electricity bills down 8% by 2030
• 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 6 

# Summary - 111(d) Existing Power Plant Proposal

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

7 

### • 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 http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan 

### BSER factors Costs Size of reductions Technology 

### Feasibility

# EPA Establishes a Goal for Every State

• EPA is proposing state-specific emissions goals for reducing CO2 emissions from the power sector • State goals are not requirements on individual electric generating units • States have broad flexibility to meet the rate by 2030 by lowering the overall carbon intensity of the power sector in the state
• Basic formula for the state goal is a rate: ___________________CO2 emissions from fossil fuel -fired power plants in pounds ( lbs )___________________ electricity generation from fossil -fuel fired power plants and certain low- or zero-emitting power sources ( MWh )
o Factors in MWh from fossil fuel power plants plus other types of power generation like renewables and nuclear , as well as MWh savings from energy efficiency o State - and regional - specific information is plugged into the formula, and the result of the equation is the state specific goal o Each state’s goal is different, because each state has a unique mix of emissions and power sources to plug in to each part of the formula o EPA has proposed an interim (met over 2020 - 2029) and final goal (2030 and thereafter) for each state 89



### Building Block Value Allocated in Goal -Setting Formula (1) Make fossil fuel power plants more efficient
• Improve equipment and processes to get as much electricity as possible from each unit of fuel • Using less fossil fuel to create the same amount of electricity means less carbon pollution. Average heat rate improvement of 6% for coal steam electric generating units (EGUs) (2) Use low-emitting power sources more Using lower- emitting power plants more frequently to meet demand means less carbon pollution. Dispatch to existing and under- construction natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units to up to 70% capacity factor (3) Use more zero- and low-emitting power sources
• Expand renewable generating capacity, which is consistent with current trends. • Using more renewable sources, including solar and wind, and low- emitting nuclear facilities, means less carbon pollution. Dispatch to new clean generation, including new nuclear generation under construction, moderate deployment of new renewable generation , and continued use of existing nuclear generation (4) Use electricity more efficiently Reducing demand on power plants is a proven, low - cost way to reduce emissions, which will save consumers and businesses money and mean less carbon pollution. Increase demand - side energy efficiency to 1.5% annually

# How we included renewables in the goal setting

• Used a “best practices” scenario for RE generation based on RPS requirements already established by a majority of states • Did not assume any specific type of RE technology for the best practices scenario • Not an EPA forecast of renewable capacity development • Does not establish RPS requirements for any state • Does not make any determinations regarding allowable RE compliance measures



### • Represents a level of RE development for individual states – with recognition of regional differences – 

### that EPA views as reasonable and consistent with policies that a majority of states have already adopted
10

# How we included renewables in the goal setting

• The “best practices” scenario consists of increasing annual levels 

## of RE generation estimated based on application of an annual RE growth factor to the state’s historical RE generation, subject to a max RE generation target

• Annual RE growth factors and max RE generation targets were developed separately for each of six regions

11 See Chapter 4 at: http :// www2.epa.gov/carbon - pollution -standards/clean - power- plan - proposed - rule-ghg -abatement- measures

(Note: EPA also sought comment on an alternative approach that relies on a state- by-state assessment of RE technical and market potential)

# 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

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

# 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” 1314 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

*See Update : http://www2.epa.gov/carbon - pollution - standards/fact - sheet- clean - power- plan - carbon - pollution - standards - key- dates

# Questions? m itchell.ken@epa.gov

15