CLEAN POWER PLANReducing Carbon Pollution FromExisting Power PlantsProposal Announced onJune 2, 2014This Proposal Deals With the LargestSource of GHG Emissions in the U.S.2EPA Establishes a Goal for Every State•EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategies that states and utilities arealready using to lower carbon pollution from the power sector.•Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, calculated with stateand 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 ofcovered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants ina state.•Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine how much carbon pollution isemitted by fossil fuel power plants.•Accommodates the fact that CO2emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants are influencedby how efficiently they operate and by how much they operate.•The state goal rate is calculated to account for the mix of power sources in eachstate and the application of the “building blocks”that make up the best system ofemission reduction.•States will need to meet an interim goal and a final goal.3402004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,8002,000Baseline (lb/MWh)2030 Goal (lb/MWh)

lb/MWh111(d) - Comparison of Region 6 State Baselines and2030 TargetsArkansasNew MexicoLouisianaOklahomaTexas47%42%43%42%44%Building Block Strategy EPA Used toCalculate the State GoalMaximum Flexibility:Examples of StateCompliance Measures1. Make fossil fuel-firedpower plants moreefficientEfficiency Improvements Efficiency improvementsCo-firing or switching to naturalgasCoal retirementsRetrofit CCS (e.g.,WA Parish inTexas)2. Use lower-emitting powersources moreDispatch changes toexisting natural gascombined cycle (CC)Dispatch changes to existingnatural gas CC3. Build more zero/lowemitting energy sourcesRenewable EnergyCertain NuclearNew NGCCRenewablesNuclear (new and up-rates)New coal with CCS4. Use electricity moreefficientlyDemand-side energyefficiency programsDemand-side energy efficiencyprogramsTransmission efficiencyimprovementsEnergy storage5States Choose How to Meet the Goals•Demand-side energy efficiencyprograms.*•Generating electricity fromlow/zero-emitting facilities.*•Expanding use of existing NGCCunits.*•Transmission efficiencyimprovements.•Energy storage technology.•Working with utilities to considerretiring units that are high emitting.•Energy conservation programs.•Retrofitting units with partial CCS.•Use of certain biomass.•Efficiency improvements at higheremitting plants.*•Market-based trading programs.•Building new renewables.•Dispatch changes.•Co-firing or switching to natural gas.•Building new natural gas combinedcycle units.*Measures EPA used in calculating the stategoals6Benefits and Costs•Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would help reduce CO2emissions fromthe power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels.•Also by 2030, reduce by over 25% pollutants that contribute to the soot andsmog that make people sick.•These reductions will lead to public health and climate benefits worthan estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030.•Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030.•Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated annual costs ofmeeting the standards.•Estimated at $7.3 billion to $8.8 billion in 2030.•Proposal protects children and other vulnerable Americans from thehealth threats posed by a range of pollutants.•Move us toward a cleaner, more stable environment for futuregenerations.•Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable power needed foreconomic growth.7Next Steps•The proposed rule, as well as information about howto comment andsupporting technical information, are available online at:http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan•EPA held 4 public hearings during the week of July 28thin Denver,Atlanta, Pittsburgh and Washington, D.C. Over 2700individualsattended the public hearings, with 1322 making oralcomments for therecord.•There is a 165-day public comment period on the proposal. Submitcomments by December 1, 2014.•Comments on the proposal should be identified by Docket ID No.EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602.89By June 30, 2016State submits initial multistate plan and request for 2-year extensionEPA reviews initial planand determines ifextension is warrantedby June 30, 2017State submits progressreport of planby June 30, 2018States submits multistate planState submits Negative DeclarationState submits complete implementation Plan by June30, 2016State submits initial Plan by June 30, 2016 and request 1-year extensionState submits initial multi-state Plan by June 30,2016 and request 2-year extensionEmissionGuidelinePromulgationJune 1, 2015by June 30, 2016State submits negativedeclarationEPA publishes FR noticeby June 30, 2016State submits planby June 30, 2016State submits initial planand request for 1-yearextensionEPA reviews initial plan anddetermines if extension iswarrantedby June 30, 2017State submits complete plan20152019Proposed Implementation TimelineComplianceperiod begins20202020EPA reviews plan andpublishes final decisionwithin 12 months onapproval/disapprovalEPA reviews plan andpublishes final decisionwithin 12 months onapproval/disapprovalEPA reviews plan andpublishes final decisionwithin 12 months onapproval/disapproval201620172018Questions?Kristen Bremer111(d) EPA HQ, Office of Air and Radiation Contactfor Region 6Bremer.Kristen@epa.gov(919) 541-942410Rob Lawrence111(d) EPA Region 6 OutreachCoordinatorLawrence.Rob@epa.gov(214) 665-6580Terry Johnson111(d) R6 Liaison for Texas,Arkansas & LouisianaJohnson.Terry@epa.gov(214) 665-2154Clovis Steib111(d) R6 Liaison for Oklahoma &New MexicoSteib.Clovis@epa.gov(214) 665-7566Josh Olszewski111(d) Regional CounselOlszewski.Joshua@epa.gov(214) 665-2178Carrie Thomas111(d) Regional CounselThomas.Carrie@epa.gov(214) 665-7121Austin Vela111(d) Office of External AffairsVela.Austin@epa.gov(214) 665-9792

Air Programs Legal Press, Intergovernmental Affairs & Outreach