CLEAN POWER PLAN

Reducing Carbon Pollution Fro

Existing Power Plants

Proposal Announced on 

June 2, 2014
This Proposal Deals With the 

Source of GHG Emissions in th
EPA Establishes a Goal for Every 

• EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and u

already using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector. 

• Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, calculated 

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 in

covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in a state.

• Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine how much carb

emitted by fossil fuel power plants.

• Accommodates the fact that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants 

by how efficiently they operate and by how much they operate. 

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

state and the application of the “building blocks” that make up the beemission reduction.

• States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal.
0

200400600800

1,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000

Baseline (lb/MWh) 2030 Goal (lb/MWh)

lb/MWh

111(d) - Comparison of Region 6 State Baselines and 2030 Targets

Arkansas

New Mexico

Louisiana

Oklahoma

Texas

47%42%43%

42%

44%
Building Block Strategy EPA Used to 

Calculate the State Goal

Maximum 

Examples 

Compliance 

1. Make fossil fuel-fired

power plants more efficient

Efficiency Improvements Efficiency improv

Co-firing or switcgasCoal retirementsRetrofit CCS (e.gTexas)

2. Use lower-emitting power 

sources more

Dispatch changes to existing natural gas combined cycle (CC)

Dispatch changenatural gas CC

3. Build more zero/lowemitting energy sources Renewable Energy Certain Nuclear New NGCC Renewables

Nuclear (new anNew coal with C

4. Use electricity more 

efficiently

Demand-side energy efficiency programs

Demand-side enprogramsTransmission effimprovementsEnergy storage
States Choose How to Meet the G

• 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 

emitting plants.

*

• Market-based trading pro• Building new renewables• Dispatch changes.• Co-firing or switching to n• Building new natural gas 

cycle units.

* Measures EPA used in calculatgoals
Benefits and Costs

• Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would help reduce CO

2 emiss

the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels.

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

smog that make people sick. 

• These reductions will lead to public health and climate bene

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

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

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

• Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated ann

meeting the standards.

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

• Proposal protects children and other vulnerable Americans 

health threats posed by a range of pollutants.

• Move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for futu

generations. 

• Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable power 

economic growth.
Next Steps

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

supporting technical information, are available online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan

• EPA held 4 public hearings during the week of July 28th in Den

Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. Over 2700 individuattended the public hearings, with 1322 making oral commenrecord.

• There is a 165-day public comment period on the proposal. S

comments by December 1, 2014.

• Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. 
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 Timeli

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
Questions? 

Kristen Bremer

111(d) EPA HQ, Office of Air and Radiation Contact for Region 6

Bremer.Kristen@epa.gov

(919) 541-9424

Rob Lawrence

111(d) EPA Region 6 Outreach 

Coordinator

Lawrence.Rob@epa.gov

(214) 665-6580

Terry Johnson

111(d) R6 Liaison for Texas, 

Arkansas & Louisiana

Johnson.Terry@epa.gov

(214) 665-2154

Clovis Steib

111(d) R6 Liaison for Oklahoma & 

New Mexico

Steib.Clovis@epa.gov

(214) 665-7566

Josh Olszewski

111(d) Regional Counsel

Olszewski.Joshua@epa.gov

(214) 665-2178

Carrie Thomas

111(d) Regional Counsel

Thomas.Carrie@epa.gov

(214) 665-7121

Aust

111(d) Office 

Vela.Aus

(214) 

Air Programs

Legal

Press, Intergovernmental Affairs & Outreach