According to the EPA, its proposed Clean Power Plan (CPP) would lead to a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions from the power sector by 2030, compared to 2005 levels. The CPP sets a customized goal for each state, which takes into account its existing policies and the unique structure of its energy system. The current draft regulation gives states interim goals for 2020-29, and a final target for 2030. The EPA proposal offers a great deal of flexibility for states to choose how best to achieve these emissions reduction goals. The CPP suggests four “building blocks” that states can use to achieve reductions, although other compliance strategies are also on the table. The building blocks are:
1) Improving the efficiency of fossil fuel power plants;
2) Switching to plants that emit less carbon, such as natural gas combined cycle plants;
3) Installing zero-emission plants powered by renewable or nuclear energy;
4) Increasing end-use energy efficiency (for example, installing high efficiency lighting in buildings).
EPA received nearly 4 million comments on the proposed CPP and has signaled it will adjust the final rule based on this feedback.
Though EPA’s rules have yet to be finalized, several parties have already vowed to launch legal challenges against it. In landmark 2007 and 2014 decisions, the Supreme Court found that EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources and most stationary sources under Title II of the Clean Air Act. The CPP is based on a different part of the Act, namely section 111(d) relating to Existing Source Performance Standards.
EPA estimates its rule will offer public health and climate benefits of $55 to $93 billion annually by 2030, while costing $7.3 to $8.8 billion per year. Reducing carbon emissions will lower exposure to particle pollution and ozone, thereby preventing 140,000 to 150,000 cases of asthma in children and 2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths by 2030. Overall, the EPA says for every dollar invested in this rule, there will be a $7 return in health benefits.
On Wednesday, April 8th, 2015, The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) will host a briefing, “EPA’s Clean Power Plan: Will it Work and Will it Be Upheld?” in the Rayburn House Office Building.
America needs Energy, a lot of energy if we are going to continue to live the lifestyles we are accustomed to. What is needed for the Environment is Clean Power.… Read more »
Per the EIA’s own studies AEO2010 Plant Cost as updated in 2011, the factors on “overnight” capital cost show why we still use natural gas for as much new generation as possible. … Read more »
I don’t see where the EPA has demonstrated the technology that might be scaled up to handle utility-scale emissions. Nor is there any estimate of the cost. Instead, there is… Read more »
The Obama administration EPA Clean Power Plan is well-intentioned but is premature and is not solving the global warming problem that is a major goal of the plan. The federal… Read more »
Looking at the legal complaints of “coercion” and “costs” I see nothing about the compelling interest of clean air and the damage of heat trapping gas emissions. The legal arguments… Read more »
Several studies have documented the public health impacts of coal based power production and there is little doubt that implementation of the EPA Clean Power Plan (CPP) would result in… Read more »
I completely agree with what you have said, although I do not know the approach you recommend. I do believe the EPA took their very cautious approach to their goals… Read more »
The EPA’s Notice of Data Availability is at: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-10/documents/20141028noda-clean-power-plan.pdf There were some methodological problems with the original approach laid out by EPA in June 2014 and the NODA offers alternative… Read more »
Thank you for the excellent info … All of the suggestions for change are excellent and I hope will carry the day. I had no idea that the methane measurement… Read more »
A confusing aspect of the EPA plan is that it nominally is presented as a climate protection strategy. Yet most if not all of the claimed benefits — which supposedly… Read more »
There are several points that can be made here. The National Academy of Sciences has published “The Hidden Costs of Energy” report that clearly maps out the externalities of, especially,… Read more »
Arbitrary targets, with no consideration of cost or feasibility, would seem to be the opposite of reasonable, rational rule-making. Although publicly denied, the war on coal animus is evident in… Read more »
1.“Although publicly denied, the war on coal animus is evident in the explicit disregard of cost.” An analysis by Credit Suisse indicates the current … “Awful energy margins suggest to… Read more »
The discussion thus far has mainly focused only on opinions whether power plants should be regulated for carbon emissions or the costs of such regulation. I am going to steer… Read more »
In addition to the numerous and substantial legal challenges that will play out over the Clean Power Plan, there is one practical challenge that is rapidly gaining in importance. A… Read more »