July 30, 2014 

Supporting documents for testimony of Colleen 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/cgibi n/ synapse Pu bl i cations. pI ?fi Iter option- Report& fi Iter type- Document+ type&a dva need =false 

The math: 

According to EPA's building blocks, Plant Vogtle Units 3 and 4 are responsible for 209 lbs/MWh of our 

target. 

To be conservative, we'll assume a capacity factor of 1. 

2200 MW * 8760 (hours in a year)= 19,272,000 MWh 

According to ACEEE, Georgia has potential for 34,000,000 MWh of energy efficiency. 

The EPA Clean Power Plan building blocks only look to Georgia to achieve 12,000,000 MWh of energy 

efficiency by 2030. 

34m -12m= 22,000,000 available MWh of energy efficiency we could tap into WITHOUT FINISHING 

PLANT VOGTLE. 

US EPA's target for Georgia of 834 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 other areas of the 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 metnc ton 

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% 

Georgia 

StateData 

20 I 2 generation by resource 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 rate reduction by building block. Reductions are shown as a percent of the 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 older a 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 capacity factors disploce cool and other 

fossil generation. 

Thrs State has 4 nuclc<tr unit{s). totaling 4 GW of cap<tcity. Of this, 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-rated by the percent by whrch the state is a net 

Pagel of I 1:05PM 713012014