CLEAN POWER PLAN PROPOSALReducing Carbon Pollution FromExisting Power PlantsRay SaracinoAir Division, Clean Energy & Climate Change OfficeUS EPA, Region 9Overview for Guam OfficialsAugust 19, 2014What is the Greenhouse Effect?Causes of Climate ChangeHuman RoleThe atmosphericconcentration ofgreenhouse gases hasincreased over the pasttwo centuries, largelydue to human-generatedcarbon dioxide emissionsfrom burning fossil fuels.This increase hasamplified the naturalgreenhouse effect bytrapping more of theenergy emitted by theEarth. This changecauses Earth's surfacetemperature toincrease.Carbon Pollution and Health•Public health risks include:–Increase in heat stroke and heat-related deaths•Extreme heat events are the leading weather-relatedcause of death in the U.S.–Worsening smog and in some cases particle pollution–Increasing intensity of extreme events, like hurricanes,extreme precipitation and flooding–Increasing the range of insects that spread diseases suchas Lyme disease and West Nile virus.President Obama’s Climate Action Plan: EPA’s Role5•Reducing carbon emissionsfrom power plants•Building a 21stcenturytransportation sector•Cutting energy waste inhomes, businesses, andfactories•Reducing methane and HFCs•Leading international effortsto address global climatechangeReducing Carbon Pollution from Power PlantsPresident’s Directive to EPA:Develop carbon pollution standards, regulations orguidelines, as appropriate, for:1. New power plants•Proposed: January 8, 20142. Modified and reconstructed power plants•Proposal: June 2014•Final: June 20153. Existing power plants•Proposed Guidelines: June 2014•Final Guidelines: June 2015•State Plans due: June 2016Why is EPA Proposing to Address CO2?7Proposed Clean Power Plan•On June 2, EPA proposed guidelines to cut carbon pollutionfrom existing power plants•The proposal published in the Federal Register on June 18•Common sense approach that will cut carbon pollution•By 2030, carbon emissions will reduced by 30% from2005levels•Spur investment in cleaner and more efficient technologies,creating jobs and driving innovation•Lead to health and climate benefits worth an estimated $55billion to $93 billion in 2030•EPA proposed emission guidelines for states to followin developing plans to reduce CO2emissions–State-specific, rate-based goals (pounds per MWh) for thepower sector–Goals were based on the “Best System of EmissionReduction” or BSER•Includes 2020-2029 Interim Goal Period and FinalGoal to be achieved in 2030 and thereafter•EPA intends to issue a supplemental proposaladdressing affected power plants on tribal lands andterritories in Fall 2014Proposed Clean Power PlanEPA Establishes a Goal for Every State•EPA analyzed the practical and affordable strategiesthat states andutilities are already using to lower carbon pollution from the powersector•Proposed goals are based on a consistent national formula, calculatedwith state 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 carbonintensity of covered existing fossil-fuel-fired power plants in a state–Encompasses the dynamic variables that ultimately determine how much carbonpollution is emitted by fossil fuel power plants–Accommodates the fact that CO2emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plantsare influenced by how efficiently they operate andby how much they operate•The state goal rate is calculated to account for themix of power sourcesin each state and the application of the “building blocks” that make upthe best system of emission reduction•Applied Four Building Blocks to 2012 emission data•Building Block 1: Make fossil fuel-fired power plantsmore efficient•Building Block 2: Increased use of lower-emittingpower sources•Building Block 3: Increased use of zero or low-emittingenergy sources•Building Block 4: Use electricity more efficientlyThe Building BlocksBuilding Block for BSER Strategy EPA Usedto Calculate theState GoalExamples of StateCompliance Measures1. Make fossil fuel-firedpower plants moreefficientEfficiencyImprovements• Efficiency improvements• Co-firing or switching to natural gas• Coal retirements• Retrofit CCS (e.g.,WA Parish inTexas)2. Use lower-emittingpower sources moreDispatch changes toexisting natural gascombined cycle (CC)• Dispatch changes to existingnatural gas CC3. Build more zero or lowemitting energysourcesRenewable EnergyCertain Nuclear• New Natural gas-fired CombinedCycle Units• Renewables• Nuclear (new and up-rates)• New coal with CCS4. Use electricity moreefficientlyDemand-side energyefficiency programs• Demand-side energy efficiencyprograms• Transmission efficiencyimprovements• Energy storage12* States are not limited to the Building Blocks and have flexibility todetermine how to meet their goalFlexibilities Available To StatesMeasures to meet Goal•States may implement any collection of measures thatreflect its particular circumstances and policy objectivesas long the collection achieves the goal•States can use a rate-based or a mass-based goal•States have the option to collaborate with other statesto develop multi-state plansTiming to Submit Plan and to Achieve Goal•States have up to two to three years to submit plans forEPA approval•States have up to a 15-year window in which to planforand achieve goals13States Have FlexibilityBasis for state goal–Potential emissionspathway reflectingEPA’s analysis2020 2021 20222023 2024 20252026 2027 2028 2029A state can choose any trajectoryof emission improvement as longas the interim performance goal ismet on average over 10 years, andthe final goal is met by 203014

Carbon emissions from affected power plants in an example stateAs an example, states could do less in the early years, and more in the lateryears, as long as on average it meets the goalTiming of Power Plant Emission ReductionsBenefits and Costs•Nationwide, by 2030, this rule would help reduce CO2emissionsfrom the power sector by approximately 30% from 2005 levels•Also by 2030, reduce by over 25% pollutants that contribute to the soot and smogthat make people sick•These reductions will lead to public health and climate benefitsworth an estimated $55 billion to $93 billion in 2030•Proposal will avoid an estimated 2,700 to 6,600 premature deathsand 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in 2030•Health and climate benefits far outweigh the estimated annualcosts of meeting 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 environment for future generations•Ensures an ongoing supply of the reliable, affordable power neededfor economic growth15Potentially Affected Power Plants inGuam•EPA did not propose goals for U.S. Territories or areas ofIndian country with affected power plants in the June 18proposal•EPA is aware of power plants in Guam that may beaffected, including:–Cabras Units 1-4–Marianas Energy Units 8 and 9Upcoming Supplemental Proposal•In the fall, EPA intends to publish a SupplementalProposal to establish CO2emission performance goalscovering affected power plants located in Indiancountry and U.S. territories•EPA intends to take final action by June 2015Questions for Consideration•Which Building Blocks should apply to goal-settingfor territories?•How can all territories participate in the program(e.g., through renewable energy or energy efficiencyprograms) to help meet goals?•What other issues we should be aware of?•Input can be provided to Pat Childers(childers.pat@epa.gov) or Laura McKelvey(Mckelvey.laura@epa.gov) of the EPA Office of AirQuality Planning and StandardsNext Steps•The proposed rule, as well as information abouthow to comment and supporting technicalinformation, are available online at:http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan•The 120-day public comment period on theproposal closesOctober 16, 2014•Comments on the proposal should be identifiedbyDocket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602andmay be submitted through www.regulations.gov•Supplemental Proposal for tribal land andterritories with affected power plants in Fall 201419Optional SlidesClean Power Plan: Process22By 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/disapproval201620172018