## July 30, 2014 Supporting documents fortestimony ofColleen Kiernan Sierra Club Georgia Chapter Director 

# 1. ACEEE 2030 Energy Efficiency Potential for Georgia and NREL Renewable Energy Potential for Georgia overlaid with EPA assumptions for EE andRE in Georgia's building blocks. 2. Synapse lll{d) Cost Estimate Tool found at http://www.synapse-energy.com/cgibin/synapsePublications.pI?fiIter option- Report&fiIter type- Document+type&advaneed=false The math: According to EPA's building blocks, Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are responsible for 209 lbs/MWh ofour target. To be conservative, we'll assume a capacity factor of 1. 2200 MW

# *8760 (hours in ayear)= 19,272,000 MWh According to ACEEE, Georgia has potential for 34,000,000 MWh ofenergy efficiency. The EPA Clean Power Plan building blocks only look to Georgia to achieve 12,000,000 MWh ofenergy efficiency by 2030. 34m -12m= 22,000,000 available MWh ofenergy efficiency we could tap into WITHOUT FINISHING PLANT VOGTLE. US EPA's targetfor Georgia of834 lbs/MWh is totally achievable, and energy efficiency is the cleanest, cheapest, safest most affordable resource we can rely on. It creates good jobs for Georgians, and keeps consumers' money in their pockets and investing in otherareas ofthe economy.(· 

# •

. -

# ..· 

# • ·-·. 

# -· 

# - .•.2012 Generation 2012 C02 Emissions 2012 lll(d) CO, Emissions Rate 2030 C02 Emissions 2030 lll(d) C02 Emissions Rate GWh 000 metric ton

lbs!MWh 000 metncton

lbs!MWh 122.306 57,006

1,534 46,224



### 834 2030 lll(d) C02 Emissions Rate Reductic lbs!MWh 701 2030% in-state generation % 88% 

# GeorgiaStateData 

### 20 I2 generation byresource type

c Q 50 

# E- 40



# ~~ 30



### "~ 20 

# " 38 

# " N 10 0 3 6 N 0 0 0 Coal NGCC 0/G Other Nuclear RE All Else 

### Emission ratereduction by building block. Reductions are shown as a percentofthe total reduction, and in lbslMWh in parantheses. O% 

### 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 

### 80% 90% 100% 100% (701 lbs/MWh) (I) lDwer **Aver~** Coal Emission Rate '"(2a) Redispatch to Existing NG (2b) Redisp<ttth tD Under-Cons. NG (3b) lncremerrtll R.enew;bles • (3a-i) At·Risk Nuclear (3a-ii) Under-Cons. Nuclear

(4) Incremental Energ Efficiency 7.0 

# ;: 6.0



### ~ 5.0

**~** 0 4.0

**~** 

# J 30



### ~ 20 ;.: 1.0 0 

### u 00 l,{



## ~~- **~il** 

### .y; -l'·



# ~ 1)

**~~-:**



# ~ **~g**

**(~**



# ~t :!{ 

# ''· '

**1---~ ~~**  **'-~-**

**~-**

**,~** 

# " -§'

**~:, ~**  **~(:,** 

## .Jl '\(:, <§I ,,. **~--:::** ">'

**~"** 

# ..,v

**~o'** 

### """

A.ge of Co<JI Umts **1ye:~rsi** Htstr>gr;m cr,, GJ unit age Generolly. the oldera strrte's cDc;: fleet, the more **c~portunity** there Js to lower the coal **emlsslo.~** rote Bu!ldr!l?, Block 3a. Nu(IE"ar 

### r.. , f;, :·;•_/ 

### '· 

# "' 80 

### 2 70 

# ;:: 60 Other 

# >:: so 0/G c Q 40 **~NGCC** 0 

## ;:; 30 ;· CoCII c 20

**·~** ·."l 10 0 2012 2030 51%· NGCC CF . **70'}~** Genemtian from ll"'<reased NGCC capacityfactors disploce cool andother fossil generation. Thrs State has 4 nuclc<tr unit{s). totaling 4 GW of cap<tcity. Ofthis, 5.3 percent. (0.2 GW) is **'<~t--rrsk'.** This state has 2 GW 

### of **nucle<~r** units under construction 14%

**~** t: 12%

**~** 0

**~** 

# .E 10% 

## "

**~** " 0 8% 

# ..., c:- 6% .Q: 

### rl



### E~ QJ N 4%coo f..J N 2% w 

# "' 0% 

# _______.,..

# .. 

# '

**~** 0 

### el 0 0 

### el 

# i'l

**~ ~**  

### 20!3 · 20/6 values are interpolated_ 

# ~ 

# .

**~** 

### 1l 0



## ~ 0

**~ ~**  **~** SynapseReport.20 14-07.0.111(d)-Cost-Estim<ttC·Tool.l4-026 12% 

# ,,.., An "EPA Ad/' line IS shown 1fthrs state IS a net energy importer. Building Black 4 rs then pro-ratedby the percent by whrch the state is a net Pagel of I 1:05PM 713012014