\ndivided by state electricity generation from fossil-fuel-fired power plants and certain low- or zero-emitting power sources in megawatt-hours. “Each state’s goal reflects the fact that
\nCO2<\/sub> emissions from fossil-fuel-fired power plants are determined both by how efficiently they operate and by how much they operate,” the EPA said. States can choose how to meet
\ntheir goals through specific options, including investing in energy efficiency programs, expanding renewable and “low-carbon” capacity, upgrading aging infrastructure, or “looking broadly
\nacross the power sector for strategies that get reductions.”<\/p>\n
![\"US](\"\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/I0140904_01.jpg\")
\n <\/div>\n![\"EPA's](\"\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/I0140904_02.jpg\")
\n <\/div>\nThe EPA is proposing the state goal approach under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CCA), which requires that the EPA identify the “best system of emission reduction (BSER). . .
\nadequately demonstrated” that is available to limit pollution. It identified 4 “building blocks” that it says are in use by many states and utilities to make up the best system to curb
\ncarbon pollution. These include making fossil fuel power plants more efficient; using lower-emitting sources (such as natural gas combined cycle units); using more renewable and nuclear
\nsources; and using power more efficiently (see Figure 2 above).<\/p>\n
New Proposal for Modified, Reconstructed Power Plants<\/h2>\n
In a separate action, the EPA also proposed standards to address CO2<\/sub> emissions from modified and reconstructed power plants under the authority of Clean Air Act Section Instead, the agency proposed separate numeric standards for different types of units. For modified utility boilers and integrated gasification combined cycle units, the EPA proposed 2 According to the EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), total compliance costs for the longer-term “building block” BSER-approach (dubbed “Option 1”) are much steeper than for “Option Total compliance state costs for Option 1 will be $7.5 billion in 2020, while total compliance regional costs for the same option will be $4.6 billion in 2020. Option 2 state costs Average delivered coal prices to the power sector could see a steep drop (by 16%–17% in 2020) under Option 1—but that is in large part due to a decline in the use of coal “This plan is all about flexibility,” she added. “That’s what makes it ambitious, but achievable. That’s how we can keep our energy affordable and reliable. The glue that holds this ”<\/p>\n
\n111(b). “The proposed emission limits for modified or reconstructed sources are based on the performance of available and demonstrated technology,” the EPA said. “These proposed limits for
\nmodified and reconstructed sources do not require implementation of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, nor are they based on that technology.”<\/p>\n
\nalternative standards of performance. Under the first alternative, all modified units would be subject to a single standard of performance, and under the second, the specific form of the
\nstandard will depend on whether the source makes the modification before or after becoming subject to a CAA section 111(d) state plan. Performance standards for modified natural gas
\nstationary combustion turbines are set at a level based on natural gas combined cycle technology.<\/p>\nTotal Compliance Costs Range from $7.3B to $8.8B<\/h2>\n
\n2,” on which the EPA is taking comment, and which calls for carbon emissions reductions of 24% over a shorter timeframe to 2025.<\/p>\n![\"EPA-Set](\"\/io\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2016\/10\/I0140904_03.jpg\")
\n <\/div>\n
\ntally $5.5 billion, while regional costs are about $4.5 billion in 2020. Option 1 state compliance costs by 2030 amount to $8.8 billion, while regional costs are $7.3 billion. The RIA also
\nestimates that under Option 1, average nationwide retail power prices could increase between 6% and 7% in 2020, but only by 3% in 2030 because increased energy-efficiency will lead to
\nreduced usage.<\/p>\n
\nfor power, which the EPA estimates will drop to roughly 30% to 32% in 2030. Natural gas prices, on the other hand, could soar by 9% to 12% in 2020. According to EPA Administrator Gina
\nMcCarthy, climate and health benefits are much higher. “In 2030, the Clean Power Plan will deliver climate and health benefits of up to $90 billion dollars,” she said in a statement on
\nJune 2. “And for soot and smog reductions alone, that means for every dollar we invest in the plan, families will see $7 dollars in health benefits. And if states are smart about taking
\nadvantage of efficiency opportunities, and I know they are, when the effects of this plan are in place in 2030, average electricity bills will be 8% cheaper.”<\/p>\n
\nplan together, and the key to making it work, is that each state’s goal is tailored to its own circumstances, and states have the flexibility to reach their goal in whatever way works best
\nfor them.<\/p>\n