National Affairs and Legislation Committee
The Garden Club of America
113th Congress, 2nd Session — July 16, 2014
Update #13
REGULATION OF EXISTING POWER PLANTS TO REDUCE
CARBON EMISSIONS: A LOOK INSIDE THE BOX
 120-Day Comment Period
 State-oriented approach
What you can do:
 If you support the proposed regulations to reduce the CO2 emissions from existing electrical power plants,
send the EPA your own brief personal comment in favor of the new regulations, and encourage other
members of your garden club to do likewise. They may be surprised to learn exactly what the regulation
proposes. The 120-day comment period ends on October 16. To submit a comment, click this link to the
Federal Register: http://www.regulations.gov/#!submitComment;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602-0001
 Considering attending one of the four hearings that will be held during the week of July 28 in Denver,
Atlanta, Washington, DC and Pittsburgh. Advance registration is not required. Time and place information is at http://www2.epa.gov/carbon-pollution-standards/forms/public-hearings-clean-power-plan-proposed-rule
 Contact your representative and senators. If you favor the new regulations, tell them why and urge
them to support the rules and allow them to take effect as planned.
 Urge legislators to provide the appropriations needed by EPA to administer the regulations and help
states develop their plans. Ask them to refrain from adding restrictive riders to the money bill to
thwart the new rule. The House will be voting soon, so it is important to contact your Representative
right away.
Regulations, not legislation.
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), following President Obama’s Climate Action
Plan, proposed broad regulations designed to reduce the level of annual emissions of CO2 from existing power
plants to levels equivalent to 30 percent less than 2005 emissions. A 120-day public comment period will end on
October 16, 2014. EPA is holding four regional public hearings
in Denver, Pittsburgh, Washington DC and Atlanta. Then EPA
U.S. CO2 Emissions in 2012
will analyze and respond to comments and make adjustments in
response to the comments, with the deadline for issuing a final
rule in June, 2015. The states then will have another year, until
July, 2016, to submit their plans for attaining their CO2 emissions
goals but will be permitted one-year extensions or, in the case
of multi-state plans, two-year extensions. Compliance is supposed
to begin in 2020.
Many economists believe a market-based cap-and-trade means of
reducing emissions or a carbon tax would be the most economically
efficient and hence the least costly policy. However, the legislative
climate precludes those policies. Of the possible regulatory approaches,
the regulations EPA is proposing offer probably the most economically
efficient regulatory approach that could be devised.
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,
“Annual Energy Outlook 2014, Early Release Overview”
www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/index.cfm
Flexible approach:
Opponents of federal regulations to reduce the CO2 emissions of existing power
plants objected to a one-size-fits-all prescription from Washington DC that would be
likely to raise power costs, threaten the reliability of electric power, and slow the
economy. So that is what EPA did not do. Instead, after an unprecedented preproposal “listening session” outreach to consumer groups, state officials, power
plant owners and operators, technology innovators and others, EPA proposed that
states come up with their own plans. It recognized that states have strikingly different
energy generating profiles and were starting from different levels of CO2 emissions
per kilowatt hour.2 EPA is also cognizant of the fact that although 63 percent of coalfired generating units are at least 40 years old, coal is nevertheless going to be a
significant fuel for generating electrical power for many decades into the future.
The proposed regulation would set binding goals on a state-by-state basis. EPA used
a uniform formula to calculate the CO2 emission reductions in each state that could
be achieved by applying the best system of emissions reduction (BSER) to each
state’s particular power generation “fleet,” i.e. the mix of coal-burning, gas-burning,
nuclear and renewable electricity generators. States also would be expected to reduce
demand for electricity, compared to business-as-usual, by instituting efficiency
reforms which would count toward achieving their CO2 emission reduction goals.
Lastly, states could use the option of creating cap-and-trade programs either within
their boundaries or among a number of states. Thus, far from dictating to the states
how to reduce CO2 emissions from their existing power plants, the proposed
regulations challenge states to respond in the ways best suited to their particular
circumstances and economics.
State goals:
State goals are expressed in terms of average pounds of CO2 per megawatt hour
from all affected fossil fuel-fired electrical generating units. (See chart at the right.)
However, states would be allowed to convert their goals into equivalent total overall
tons of CO2 emissions. A state might choose to do this if it planned to reduce its
emissions by using a market-oriented tax or trading program based on tons of CO2.
(The proposed goals are called “rate based,” while the optional equivalent weight
goals are called “mass based.”)
States1
Actual
2012
level
Interim
goal
202029
Final
goal
2030
& after
Ala.
1,444
1,147
1,059
Alaska
1,351
1,097
1,003
Ariz. *
1,453
735
702
Ark.
1,640
968
910
Calif.
698
556
537
Colo.
1,714
1,159
1,108
Conn.
765
597
540
Del.
1,234
913
841
Fla.
1,200
794
740
Ga.
1,500
891
834
Hawaii
1,540
1,378
1,306
Idaho
339
244
228
Ill.
1,895
1,366
1,271
Ind.
1,923
1,607
1,531
Iowa
1,552
1,341
1,301
Kans.
1,940
1,578
1,499
Ky.
2,158
1,844
1,763
La.
1,466
948
883
Maine
437
393
378
Md.
1,870
1,347
1,187
Mass.
925
655
576
Mich.
1,696
1,227
1,161
Minn.
1,470
911
873
Miss.
1,130
732
692
Mo.
1,963
1,621
1,544
Mont.
2,245
1,882
1,771
Neb.
2,009
1,596
1,479
Nev.
988
697
647
N. H.
905
546
486
N. J.
932
647
531
N.M.*
1,586
1,107
1,048
N. Y.
983
635
549
N.C.
1,646
1,077
992
N.D.
1,994
1,817
1,783
Ohio
1,850
1,452
1,338
Okla.
1,387
931
895
Oreg.
717
407
372
Penna.
1,540
1,179
1,052
R. I.
907
822
782
S. C.
1,587
840
772
S. D.
1,135
800
741
Tenn.
1,903
1,254
1,163
Texas
1,298
853
791
Utah *
1,813
1,378
1,322
Va.
1,297
884
810
Wash.
763
264
215
W. Va.
2,019
1,748
1,620
Wisc.
1,827
1,281
1,203
Wyo.
2,115
1,808
1,714
*Excludes power generated in Indian country
How the state goals were calculated:
Although the EPA regulations aim to bring nationwide CO2 emissions from existing
power plants in 2030 down to a level that is 30 percent lower than the 2005 level, the
individual state goals are not pegged to reductions from a baseline year. Instead, EPA
took the 2012 data for each state’s emissions—the most recent entire year period for
which data has been compiled—and then used a complicated but consistent formula
to establish the state-specific goals. Each state was given a choice between two
binding goals. One goal was based on reasonable BSER assumptions (“best system of
emission reduction,” in EPA jargon) that would require the state to reach its goal by 2030. Interim goals were established
for 2020-2029 and final goals for 2030 and thereafter. An alternative set of goals was based on less ambitious BSER
assumptions but would have to be achieved by 2025.
The state goals were calculated based on a number of assumptions regarding practical and affordable strategies that
states are already using to lower carbon pollution from electrical power plants. EPA called these strategies “building
blocks.”
 The first building block was to assume that “heat rate” improvements could reduce the CO2 emissions from the
state’s coal-fired power plants by six percent. The alternative goal assumed only a four percent CO2 emissions
reduction. Since power plants burn fossil fuels to generate heat to turn electricity-generating turbines, the more heat
1
Vermont and Washington DC do not have any fossil fuel-based electric generating units, so no goal was established for them.
For example, 78% of Idaho’s electricity is generated by geothermal, hydropower and other renewable sources while next door in Montana, almost
all the power comes from coal-fired units. To find out about your state’s energy profile, go to http://www.eia.gov/state/ and click on your state.
2
that can be squeezed from each unit of fuel, the more efficient the electric power generation and the less CO2 that is
emitted per kilowatt.
 For the second building block, EPA assumed that existing natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants could reach a
70 percent utilization level. The alternative goal assumed only a 65 percent NGCC utilization level. Essentially
EPA assumed that states could shift (or “redispatch” in EPA jargon) some of their power generation away from
coal- and/or oil- and gas-steam-powered plants to the far more efficient NGCC plants. NGCC plants recycle the
waste heat from the first electrical generation system to power a second generating
cycle. As a result NGCC plants are about 50 to 60 percent more efficient than
Natural Gas Combined Cycle
single cycle plants that end up venting or cooling their hot air or hot water waste.
Not every state currently has NGCC plants, and the formula took this into account.
 The third building block assumed increased reliance on renewable energy and
nuclear power. The formula used to calculate each state’s goal took into account
the existing renewable energy and nuclear plants in each state, including those
already under construction. It looked at the different potential for renewable power
in six regions including availability of hydropower and geothermal resources,
wind and solar potential. It also recognized that some nuclear power plants are
nearing the end of their lifetimes and are at risk of being decommissioned.
Working principle of a combined cycle power plant
 For the fourth building block, EPA calculated what percentage reduction of each
(Legend: 1-Electric generators, 2-Steam turbine, 3state’s electric power output could be achieved through energy efficiency
Condenser, 4-Pump, 5-Boiler/heat exchanger, 6-Gas
turbine)
Source:: Wikipedia
programs. EPA pointed out that a dozen leading states have developed energy
efficiency programs that already or will in the future achieve incremental annual
savings of at least 1.5 percent of electricity demand compared to business-as-usual. In 2012, California and
Minnesota avoided 12.5 and 13.1 percent respectively of their electricity demand through demand-side energy
efficiency programs. The proposed regulation takes into account the energy efficiency efforts already made by states
as well as the fact that some states have not yet begun to institute energy efficiency programs and therefore will
need time to design and implement their programs. Recognizing that states have used a variety of methods to reduce
electricity demand, the regulations do not prescribe any particular policies but instead leave it to each state to meet
its goal in the way most appropriate to its circumstances.
Four methods EPA did not consider in establishing state goals:
Four potential methods for reducing GHG emissions from power plants were deliberately excluded from EPA’s
calculation of states’ emissions goals. However, states could incorporate these methods in their plans if they wished.
 Carbon capture and storage (CCS): For its proposed regulation of new power plants, EPA assumed that CCS
was a technically feasible and affordable option. However, for existing power plants, EPA did not include
retrofitting plants to add CCS or partial CCS in the calculation of state emissions goals.
 Switching fuel from coal to natural gas: Many coal-burning plants could be modified to burn gas instead.
However, EPA did not include fuel switching in calculating state emissions goals because of feasibility
constraints and costs. Some coal-burning plants are not near natural gas pipelines; the cost of installing
pipelines is about $1 million per mile. According to the Energy Information Agency’s projections of future
coal and natural gas prices, switching fuel typically could more than double power plants’ fuel costs. EPA’s
economic analysis indicated that there were more cost effective means for coal-fired power plants to reduce
their CO2 emissions. However, some coal-burning plants have converted partially or entirely to gas to achieve
higher efficiency and/or reduce NOx emissions. Therefore EPA is soliciting comments on this issue.
 Construction of new natural gas combined cycle plants: Although the proposed regulations assume states will
transfer power generation from conventional plants to existing NGCC facilities, they do not assume
construction of new NGCC plants. This would be a less cost effective way to reduce emissions than other
methods, and if all states pursued this option, gas pipeline capacity would be inadequate. EPA recognizes that
some new NGCC plants are under consideration, however, and invites comments.
 Heat rate improvements at non-coal power plants: EPA found that heat rate improvements in gas- and oil-fired
plants and NGCC plants would not be as significant as those for coal-burning plants.
State plans:
Under the proposed regulations, the deadline for states to submit their CO2 emissions reduction plans for existing
power plants is June 30, 2016. However, EPA recognizes that some states may need longer to develop their plans; in
those cases states would have to submit initial plans by the 2016 deadline but could take another year to provide the
remaining details. EPA would have a year (instead of the regular four months) to review the state plans and either
approve or disapprove them. Because developing and implementing state plans can take time, EPA proposes that states
must begin making CO2 emission reductions by 2020 and that full compliance must be achieved by 2030.
If a state fails to submit a plan or EPA does not approve a state’s plan, then EPA must establish a plan for the state. If
several states decide to participate in a multi-state plan, they can submit a single joint plan on behalf of all participating
states. This provision virtually assures approval of the nine-state Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative program.
A state plan must establish standards of performance, along with implementation, enforcement and reporting procedures.
A state plan can use the same building blocks that EPA used in calculating the state’s goal or it can use other or
additional polices to achieve the same required CO2 reductions. The criteria by which EPA will evaluate state plans are
(1) enforceable measures that reduce power plant CO2 emissions, (2) projected achievement of the state’s goal established
by the EPA, (3) quantifiable and verifiable emission reductions, and (4) a process for reporting on plan implementation.
What’s next?
Thousands of public comments have already been submitted, the vast majority of them favorable responses by citizens.
The stakeholders have yet to weigh in except for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, which said that 120
days was too short a comment period for such sweeping regulations. Some of the negative comments appear to be
based on an incomplete understanding of the regulations and seem to assume that the regulations would require
the closing of coal-fired power plants. To read the comments, go to
http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=100;so=DESC;sb=docId;po=0;dct=PS;D=EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602.
In the House, the anti-carbon regulations guns are already unholstered. The Appropriations Committee on an 1829 party-line vote, yesterday refused to delete a provision in the Interior/EPA Appropriations bill to block EPA’s
proposed regulation of existing power plant CO2 emissions. The Committee also denied the Administration’s
request for $24.3 million to help states write their implementation plans and set up their CO2 permit programs—a
move that will prevent businesses from having the certainty they desire regarding what the state permitting rules
will be. As further “punishment” of EPA for not providing full, accurate information to Congress, the bill would
cut EPA funding by nine percent compared by the already tight FY 2014 level and would reduce EPA employees
to the lowest level since the late 1980s. Full House debate later this month is likely, and more anti-regulation
riders could be proposed. Similar provisions have passed the House before, but almost all have died in the Senate
or in House-Senate conference. The Senate is not expecting to have floor debate on the Interior/EPA bill this year,
so differences will be resolved in conference, possibly in an omnibus continuing resolution.
Senator McConnell (R-KY) has already launched an attempt to use the Congressional Review Act to block EPA
regulations of CO2 emissions from new power plants. It is possible that he will attempt to use the CRA to block
regulation of existing power plants as well.
Watch for court action as well. Nine states (AL, AK, KY, NE, OH, OK, SC, WV and WY.) have joined the
Murray Energy Corporation, the nation’s largest privately-owned coal company, in a lawsuit seeking to stop EPA
from regulating emissions from existing power plants. They are alleging that the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments
prevent EPA from regulating existing power plants under two different sections of the Act. EPA has long said the
House and Senate passed two conflicting provisons and that EPA’s interpretation is warranted. Other lawsuits
from other companies and stakeholder could be brought.
How to contact your legislators:
To send e-mail to your senator, go to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm and scroll to the
senator’s name. There you will see a “web form” address in red type. Click on that address and follow the directions for
sending e-mail.
To send email to your representative, go to https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
To telephone any legislator, call the Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121. Ask for your senator's office by name. When the
phone is answered, say that you want to leave a message about an issue. A very young aide will take the message or send you to the
legislator’s voice mail. This seems impersonal, but is nevertheless effective—legislators keep track of how many calls come in on
different issues and the direction in which sentiment is running. Even a relatively small number of calls are enough to warrant
serious consideration of the views expressed.
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
NAL updates serve in an advisory capacity, based on committee research. Individual clubs and members may act on any issue as they choose. Editors:
Martha Phillips ([email protected]) and Suzanne Canfield ([email protected]). All e-mails and faxes are sent from GCA Headquarters. To
unsubscribe: Contact Danielle at GCA Headquarters, 212-753-8287, or [email protected].