Clean Power Plan for Missouri
Demonstrating Climate Solutions in the Show Me State
On June 2, 2014, as part of the President’s Climate Action Plan, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first-ever carbon
pollution standards for existing power plants, known as the Clean Power
Plan (CPP), signaling an end to the era of power plants dumping unlimited
amounts of carbon pollution into our atmosphere. The standards create a
strong framework for states as they continue to move towards renewable
energy and energy efficiency. States have been put in the driver’s seat and
allowed great flexibility to create plans to limit carbon pollution, and local
leadership is now more important than ever.
To set state-specific goals, EPA analyzed strategies that
may work alone or in cooperation with other states to
states and utilities are already using to reduce carbon
comply with the proposed rule. EPA estimates that states
pollution from the power sector. These include improving
could achieve their goals most cost effectively if they work
power plants’ operational efficiency, encouraging reliance
with others.
on low-carbon generators such as wind and solar, and
conserving energy at our homes, businesses, and other
Missouri’s Utilities Are Already Taking Action
to Cut Carbon Pollution
buildings. Together, these measures make up the central
The state goals in the CPP are not specific requirements
building blocks of the EPA’s definition of the “best system
on individual electric generating units. Missouri, and
of emissions reduction” for reducing carbon pollution. EPA
the utility companies that operate large coal plants, will
analyzed each of these strategies across the country, and
choose how to reduce the state’s carbon intensity to
developed goals that are unique to each state.
achieve the state’s target. Existing plans to retire some
In 2012, Missouri’s power sector CO2 emissions were
of Missouri’s oldest and dirtiest power plants will allow
approximately 71 million metric tons from sources covered
the state to easily achieve half of its target as utilities
by the rule. Missouri’s 2012 carbon emission rate was 1,963
implement existing plans to phase out those plants (Figure
pounds/megawatt hour (lb/MWh). EPA is proposing that
1).2
Missouri develop a plan to lower its carbon pollution to
These coal plant retirements will also reduce air pollution,
meet a proposed emission rate goal of 1,544 lb/MWh in
coal ash discharges, and freshwater use across the state.
2030.1 That is a 21% reduction in emissions rate from 2012
These plants emitted approximately 23,466 tons of sulfur
levels for Missouri.
dioxide and 13,288 tons of nitrogen oxides in 2012.3 In
Missouri may choose the combination of measures that
Missouri, nearly 2.5 million people live where it is unsafe to
reflects its particular circumstances and policy objectives.
breathe4, and phasing out these plants will have a dramatic
A state does not have to put in place the same mix of
impact on the state’s health and environment.
strategies that EPA used to set that state’s goal. Missouri
Clean Energy Development Is An Economic and
Environmental Win for Missouri
Figure 1.
Coal Retirements Toward EPA Goal: Missouri
In addition to phasing out the oldest and dirtiest power
Missouri’s use of clean energy to reduce reliance on highcarbon energy sources. Missouri is poised to exceed EPA’s
projection with smart investments in energy efficiency,
wind, and solar. Figure 2 compares EPA’s CPP renewable
energy (RE) assumptions with requirements under
Missouri’s Renewable Energy Standard and projected RE
lbs/MWh
growing clean energy sector. EPA projects an increase in
(reduction from 2012)
450
plants, Missouri is already taking climate action with a
400
2030 Goal
Target
Reductions
350
300
250
200
Vulnerable
419
95
150
100
Announced
and Retired
116
50
0
2030 Goal
Target
Reductions
potential by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL). Figure 2 also compares EPA’s CPP energy
Reductions from
Coal Retirements
(Renewable
Replacement)
efficiency (EE) assumptions with goals under the Missouri
Energy Efficiency Investment Act (MEEIA) and projected
EE potential by the America Council for an Energy
Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Communities across the entire state can implement energy
efficiency, bringing new jobs statewide. NRDC estimates
that Missouri could generate 3,900 jobs, and cut 20.2
Energy Efficiency Reduces Customer Bills and
Reduces Energy Use
million tons of carbon pollution with a focus on energy
efficiency.10
Missouri utilities are already seeing tremendous energy
savings—and customer savings—through use of the
Missouri Wind Can Save Water and Save Money
Missouri Energy Efficiency Investment Act (MEEIA). The
Unlike large coal plants that use tremendous amounts of
law sets a target of offsetting 9.9% of Missouri’s investor-
water for operations and discharge dangerous coal ash
owned electricity sales through energy conservation by
into Missouri’s rivers and lakes, wind turbines do not need
2020. If all Missouri utilities met the MEEIA goals, the
any water to operate. As Missouri plans for more drought
state would be on track to meet its CPP target about nine
years, billions of gallons of freshwater could be saved if
years ahead of schedule.5 Missouri’s regulated utilities have
Missouri generated more of its energy from wind.
begun to embrace efficiency, and Empire, KCP&L, KCP&L
Missouri’s Renewable Energy Standard (RES), Proposition
GMO, and Ameren are all on track to save energy, and to
C, was passed by voter initiative in 2008 showing
save customers millions of dollars.
tremendous state-wide support for building a clean energy
The customer savings opportunities associated with
economy. The law calls on Missouri’s investor-owned
energy efficiency are staggering. The Natural Resources
utilities to generate 15% of their energy from renewable
Defense Council estimates that a shift to clean energy will
resources by 2021. Missouri’s wind energy is already
save $5.60 per month on the average Missouri household
serving part of that requirement.
customer’s electricity bill, adding up to savings for
If Missouri relies more on state-based wind to reduce
Missouri households of $15 million a month, or $180 million
carbon, it will create jobs in the process. There are
annually, on their electricity bills.6 Ameren is already
currently 13 companies in Missouri involved in wind turbine
deploying a set of programs that, once implemented over
parts manufacturing with more than 500 Missourians
the next three years, will lead to its customers saving $500
employed in the wind energy sector.11 Missouri’s existing
million on energy bills. KCP&L projects that its investments
252 wind turbines result in $1.2 million in lease payments to
in wind and energy efficiency will save its customers $1
property owners every year.12 That’s nearly $5,000 per year
billion over the next 20 years. In Independence, Missouri,
per wind turbine. This represents a considerable economic
the city’s utility has replaced all street lights with energy
boost to farmers who lease their land to wind energy
efficient LED lights and projects an annual savings of
projects, especially considering that the small footprint of
$650,000 as a result,8 and a 2008 engineering study on
wind turbines allows continued farming of the land.
7
the city’s purchase of 150 MW of wind power projected an
$11 million savings over 20 years.9
Like energy efficiency, relying more on wind will bring
customer savings. For example, in January 2014, KCP&L
Figure 2:
EPA Underestimates Missouri’s Renewable Energy (RE) & Energy Efficiency (EE) Potential
Renewable Energy
Energy Efficiency
20,000,000
12,000
18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
8,000,000
Annual MWh
Annual MWh
10,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
12,000
10,000,000
8,000,000
6,000,000
4,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
0
0
2020
2025
2029
2020
2025
2029
CPP Renewable Energy (RE) Assumption
CPP Energy Efficiency (EE) Assumption
MO RE Standard
MEEIA Goals
NREL 2030 RE Potential
ACEEE 2030 EE Potential
announced it was investing in 400 MW of wind power
As the state evaluates cost-effective, job-creating ways
from new wind farms—200 MW in Missouri and 200 MW
to reduce carbon, solar shows tremendous potential.
in Kansas. KCP&L predicted customer savings in the
Unfortunately, these jobs are at risk as Ameren and KCP&L
hundreds of millions due to wind’s competitive prices.
have declared an end to a wildly popular solar rebate
Savings like this are occurring across the region, and
program established by Missouri voters under Proposition
Missouri could deliver even more savings to residents with
C.21 There are currently 70 manufacturing and installation
more wind investments. For example, in Lincoln, Nebraska,
companies in the solar industry in Missouri and the state
the local utility’s wind purchase will save customers $160
should evaluate solar’s critical role in helping the state
million over 20 years.14 In Minnesota, Xcel Energy’s huge
achieve its carbon goals.22
investments in wind will save customers $220 million.15 In
Iowa, MidAmerican Energy announced the largest ever
Let’s Work Together to Show Leadership on
Carbon Pollution from Missouri
economic investment in Iowa’s history with a $1.9 billion
Missouri is in the driver’s seat as it sets out to evaluate the
wind development, slated to save customers around $200
best path to reduce carbon. As we move forward on the
million.16
schedule below, we have an exciting opportunity to find
Investing in Solar Can Preserve Missouri’s Solar Job
win-win solutions for clean energy and the economy. A
Boom Missouri’s economy is already benefiting from clean
focus on cost-saving energy efficiency, the expanded use
energy jobs. According to the Solar Foundation’s 2013
of Missouri’s own renewable resources, and the phase out
Solar Job Census, Missouri is ranked 12th in the nation with
of Missouri’s oldest coal plants will set Missouri clearly and
2,800 Missourians currently working in the solar field.17
easily on the path toward meeting U.S. EPA’s carbon goal.
That number was projected to grow to 3,900 by the end
Proposed State Implementation Plan Due Dates
of 2014, demonstrating the huge job growth potential
June 30, 2016 – State Implementation Plan Due
13
associated with investing in solar.18 Missouri was one of
only seven states in 2013 for which solar made up 100% of
new installed generation.19 And Missouri was ranked 14th
in the nation in MW of installed solar capacity for the first
quarter of 2014.20
June 30, 2017 – Final State Implementation Plan Due for
States with Extension, Draft Plan for Multi-State Plan
June 30, 2018 – Final Multi-State Plan Due
APPENDIX A: Plant Retirement Details
Owner
Plant Name
Size
2012 Carbon
Emissions
Plan to Retire
(Tons Per Year)
AECI
Chamois
59MW
340,811
Already retired
AECI
Thomas Hill 1
180MW
1,444,242
Presented to Missouri Public Service
Commission as possible compliance
strategy
Ameren
Meramec
923MW
4,664,634
Board vote and PSC filing – July 2014
City of Columbia
Municipal Power Plant
39MW
67,727
Draft review of energy portfolio for
City Council
City Utilities
James River 1-3
88MW
115,902
City approved conversion to gas
Independence
Blue Valley
115MW
55,189
City resolution passed 7/21/14 to stop
burning coal
KCPL GMO
Sibley 1-2
105MW
282,872
2019 retirement according to 2014
Integrated Resource Plan Annual
Update
Unit 1 to retire in 2016 and Units 2
and 3 in 2021, according to 2014
Integrated Resource Plan Annual
Update
KCPL
Montrose
564MW
2,176,653
KCPL GMO
Lake Road
90MW
432,107
TOTAL
To retire in 2019 according to 2014
Integrated Resource Plan Annual
Update
9,580,137
endnotes
1 U.S. EPA Clean Power Plan – States, http://cleanpowerplanmaps.epa.gov/CleanPowerPlan/
2 Details underlying Figure 1 are in Appendix A.
3 EPA Air Markets Program Data, http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/
4 American Lung Association, “State of the Air 2014,” pages 110-111, http://www.stateoftheair.org/2014/assets/ALA-SOTA-2014-Full.pdf
5 Weiskopf, David, “Missouri Poised to Meet EPA Carbon Reduction Targets years Ahead of Schedule, Thanks to State Efficiency, Renewable Energy Policies,” Natural Resources Defense Council, June 17, 2014, http://switchboard.
nrdc.org/blogs/dweiskopf/missouri_poised_to_meet_epa_ca.html
6 Natural Resources Defense Council Fact Sheet, “Missouri Can Create 3,900 Efficiency-Related Jobs, Cut Electric Bills, and Curb Carbon Pollution,” May 2014, http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/files/cps-statebenefits-MO.pdf
7 Associated Press, “KCP&L plans to increase wind power, conservation,” January 1, 2014, http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_6e13ccbf-6896-508b-b7bf-db7d29357f71.html
8 Indy Energy, “City saves money with LED street lights,” http://www.indyenergy.org/around-town/2013/12/14/city-saves-money-with-led-street-lights
9 Rogers, Chris PE, Sega, INc., “Review of Smoky Hills II for IPL Participation,” June 19, 2008, page 10
10 Natural Resources Defense Council Fact Sheet, “Missouri Can Create 3,900 Efficiency-Related Jobs, Cut Electric Bills, and Curb Carbon Pollution,” May 2014, http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution-standards/files/cps-statebenefits-MO.pdf
11 American Wind Energy Association, State Facts – Missouri, http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/Missouri.pdf
12 Ibid
13 Associated Press, “KCP&L plans to increase wind power, conservation,” January 1, 2014, http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/article_6e13ccbf-6896-508b-b7bf-db7d29357f71.html
14 Laukaitis, Algis, “Deal will give big boost to LES wind energy resources,” Lincoln Journal Star, July 19, 2013, http://journalstar.com/news/local/deal-will-give-big-boost-to-les-wind-energy-resources/article_43093d96-bb4e5112-9133-b7e091f14162.html
15 Shaffer, David, “Xcel, seeing a good deal, adds even more wind power,” Star Tribune, August 14, 2013, http://www.startribune.com/business/219411891.html#MfhOofD4BjayJvLM.97
16 Petroski, William, “MidAmerican Energy will invest $1.9 billion in wind projects in Iowa,” Des Moines Register, May 8, 2013, http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2013/05/08/branstad-says-midamerican-willinvest-1-9-billion-on-wind-energy-in-iowa/article?nclick_check=1
17 The Solar Foundation, State Solar Jobs – Missouri, http://thesolarfoundation.org/solarstates/missouri
18 Ibid
19 Solar Energy Industries Association, “2013 Top 10 Solar States,” http://www.seia.org/research-resources/2013-top-10-solar-states
20 Solar Energy Industries Association, “Solar Market Insight Report 2014 Q1,” http://www.seia.org/research-resources/solar-market-insight-report-2014-q1
21 Altman, Maria, “Loss Of Rebate Clouds Missouri’s Solar Industry,” St. Louis Public Radio, March 19, 2014, http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/loss-rebate-clouds-missouris-solar-industry
22 The Solar Foundation, State Solar Jobs – Missouri, http://thesolarfoundation.org/solarstates/missouri
Sierra Club National
85 Second Street, 2nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 977-5500
Sierra Club Legislative
50 F Street, NW, Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 547-1141
sierraclub.org
facebook.com/SierraClub
twitter.com/SierraClub