Disparate Impacts of the 111(d) Rule on States
At the Crossroads Energy & Climate Policy Summit
November 20, 2015
Mike Nasi [email protected] 512.236.2216
Existing & Modified/Reconstructed Standards More Stringent Than New Unit Standards
*New unit standard is 1,400 lb CO2/MWh; Reconstructed standard is 1,800 1,400 lb CO2/MWh. Sources: EPA, Final 111(d) and 111(b) Rules; “Typical Units” based on existing industry knowledge and experience. 2
Theexis(ngunitstandards(under111(d))aremorestringentthanthenewunitstandards(under111(b)).Thisisirreconcilable,illogical,andunprecedented.
GasCCGTUnitEmissionRates(lbCO2/MWh)
TypicalExis>ngUnits
Exis>ngUnit
Standard111(d)
NewUnit
Standard111(b)
CoalGenera>onUnitEmissionRates(lbCO2/MWh)
TypicalExis>ngUnits
Exis>ngUnit
Standard111(d)
New/Re-Constructed*Standard111(b)
2,650
If EPA’s Clean Power Plan Applied to Cars
Clean Power Plan Family MPG Requirement
3
• Standard for NEW plants – 1400 lb/ MWhr CO2 (EPA admits that retrofits cannot beat 1800)
• Standard for EXISTING plants – 1305 lb/MWhr CO2 (Tx was 237)
• Tx budget 1042 (some in 900s) (EPA assumes fuel switching from fossil to renewable & coal to gas)
• Existing renewable energy is not credited toward compliance
• EPA sets MPG standard for NEW cars at 60 MPG (EPA admits that retrofits cannot beat 40)
• EPA then imposes a 70 MPG on your family’s EXISTING cars
• EPA assumes you can buy an EV, take bus, or work from home; so sets your MPG req. at 80 MPG
• You cannot count the Prius you bought in 2011 toward the goal
Sources: Proposal - Goal Computation TSD; Final - EPA “State at a Glance” Documents.
4
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%Washington
Arizo
na
SouthCarolina
Oregon
New
Ham
pshire
Georgia
Arkansas
New
York
New
Jersey
Minne
sota
NorthCarolina
Louisia
na
Tenn
essee
Texas
Florida
Virginia
MassachuseQ
sMississippi
Maryland
Oklahom
aCo
lorado
SouthDa
kota
Nevada
Wisc
onsin
New
Mexico
Illinois
Idaho
Delaware
Michigan
Penn
sylvania
Conn
ecVcut
Ohio
Utah
Alabam
aNeb
raska
California
Kansas
Missou
riMon
tana
Indiana
WestV
irginia
Wyoming
Kentucky
Iowa
Rhod
eIsland
Maine
NorthDakota
Comparison of State CO2 Rate Reduction Targets Proposal v. Final Rule (% of rate reduction)
Comparison of State CO2 Reduction Targets Proposal v. Final Rule (“rate-based” reductions converted to tons)
Preliminaryanalysis;subjecttorevision.Sources:Proposal–GoalComputaVonTSD,GoalComputaVon–Appendix1;Final–EmissionPerformanceRateandGoalComputaVon,GoalComputaVonAppendix1-5. 5
-10,000,000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000Texas
Florida
Arizo
na
Illinois
Arkansas
Louisia
na
Oklahom
aGe
orgia
Michigan
Penn
sylvania
Alabam
aMinne
sota
Missou
riCo
lorado
Indiana
Wisc
onsin
Ohio
NorthCarolina
Iowa
SouthCarolina
New
York
Utah
Kentucky
Mississippi
Tenn
essee
WestV
irginia
New
Mexico
Washington
Nevada
Wyoming
Neb
raska
NorthDakota
Kansas
New
Jersey
Oregon
Maryland
MassachuseQ
sSouthDa
kota
Mon
tana
New
Ham
pshire
Delaware
Virginia
Conn
ecVcut
Maine
Idaho
Rhod
eIsland
California
TOTALTONSTHATMUSTBEREDUCEDGIVENBUDGETEDRATESCALEMATTERS:Howmuchstuffmustyoubuild?
Howmanyassetsmustyoustrand? Howmanycustomersmustpayforit? Howmanybusinesseswillleave?
FadedBlueBars:ReducVonfromProposaltoFinalRedBars:IncreasesfromProposaltoFinal
Comparison of State CO2 Reduction Targets Proposal v. Final Rule (“mass-based” reductions in tons)
Preliminary analysis; subject to revision. Existing units only. Sources: Proposal – CPP NODA, Rate to Mass Translation Data File TSD; Final – Emission Performance Rate and Goal Computation, Goal Computation Appendix 1, EPA “State at a Glance” Documents.
6
-10,000,000
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000Texas
Florida
Penn
sylvania
Illinois
Georgia
Ohio
Michigan
Arizo
na
Indiana
Alabam
aLouisia
na
Oklahom
aSouthCarolina
NorthCarolina
Arkansas
Missou
riTenn
essee
New
York
Wisc
onsin
Co
lorado
WestV
irginia
Kentucky
Minne
sota
Iowa
California
Wyoming
Utah
Kansas
Mississippi
Maryland
Neb
raska
Virginia
New
Mexico
New
Jersey
Nevada
MassachuseQ
sWashington
Mon
tana
Oregon
NorthDakota
New
Ham
pshire
Conn
ecVcut
SouthDa
kota
Delaware
Rhod
eIsland
Maine
Idaho
Texas-791lbs/MWh17.55%
Florida-740lbs/MWh8.77%
Arizona-702lbs/MWh5.15%
Illinois-1,271lbs/MWh4.30%
Arkansas-910lbs/MWh4.25%
Louisiana-883lbs/MWh4.18%
Oklahoma-895lbs/MWh3.85%Georgia-834lbs/MWh
3.61%Michigan-1,161lbs/MWh
3.52%
Pennsylvania-1,052lbs/MWh3.18%
Alabama-1,059lbs/MWh2.86%
Minnesota-873lbs/MWh2.72%
Missouri-1,544lbs/MWh2.67%
Colorado-1,108lbs/MWh2.65%
Indiana-1,531lbs/MWh2.42%
Wisconsin-1,203lbs/MWh2.39%
Ohio-1,338lbs/MWh2.31%
NorthCarolina-992lbs/MWh2.25%
PROPOSAL
States’ Proportion of Total CO2 Reductions (“rate-based” reductions converted to tons)
Remainingstateshavereduc>onsinCO2lessthan2%oftotalU.S.emissions.
Preliminaryanalysis;subjecttorevision.Sources:Proposal–GoalComputaVonTSD,GoalComputaVon–Appendix1;Final–EmissionPerformanceRateandGoalComputaVon,GoalComputaVonAppendix1-5.
7
Texas-1,042lbs/MWh10.82%
Indiana-1,242lbs/MWh5.95%
Pennsylvania-1,095lbs/MWh5.52%
Kentucky-1,286lbs/MWh5.29%
Ohio-1,190lbs/MWh5.15%
Illinois-1,245lbs/MWh4.79%
Missouri-1,272lbs/MWh4.31%
Michigan-1,169lbs/MWh4.14%
WestVirginia-1,305lbs/MWh4.01%
Alabama-1,018lbs/MWh3.75%
Florida-919lbs/MWh3.73%
Wyoming-1,299lbs/MWh3.29%
Georgia-1,049lbs/MWh2.73%
Wisconsin-1,176lbs/MWh2.62%
Oklahoma-1,068lbs/MWh2.53%
Iowa-1,283lbs/MWh2.39%
Colorado-1,174lbs/MWh2.23%
NorthDakota-1,305lbs/MWh2.22%
Kansas-1,293lbs/MWh2.22%
Tennessee-1,211lbs/MWh2.18%
Arizona-1,031lbs/MWh2.05%
FINAL
Comparison of State CO2 Emission Rates – Baseline Raw Data (lbs/MWh)
Source:EPADataFile-2012Unit-LevelDataUsingtheeGRIDMethodology;IncludesVermont,whichisnotsubjecttoExisVng-SourceGHGRule.
2051.5
1158.9 1138.0
167.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
Kentucky
Wyoming
WestV
irginia
NorthDakota
Indiana
Utah
Missou
riNeb
raska
Colorado
Kansas
Ohio
New
Mexico
Hawaii
Iowa
Michigan
Wisc
onsin
Oklahom
aMon
tana
Minne
sota
Arkansas
Florida
Maryland
NaV
onalAverage
Georgia
Alaska
Texas(#25)
Delaware
Tenn
essee
NorthCarolina
Louisia
na
Alabam
aPe
nnsylvania
Mississippi
Illinois
MassachuseQ
sSouthCarolina
Rhod
eIsland
Nevada
Maine
Virginia
Arizo
na
New
Ham
pshire
California
New
York
SouthDa
kota
New
Jersey
Conn
ecVcut
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
Verm
ont
8
EPA-Assumed Increase in Renewable Generation (2012-2030)
Sources: EPA, Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures TSD (Final Rule); EPA, GHG Abatement Measures TSD (Rule Proposal). Assumes: 2012 baseline capacity is apportioned, by technology, at EPA’s modeled historic distribution; average acre/MW (5 MW/KM2) from NREL, U.S. Renewable Energy Technical Potentials: A GIS-Based Analysis, July 2012; state areas from U.S. Census, Geography, State Area Measurements; 2012 Projected Installed Wind Capacity
from U.S. EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2015, Table 58.
0
100,000,000
200,000,000
300,000,000
400,000,000
500,000,000
600,000,000
700,000,000
800,000,000
900,000,000
1,000,000,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
9
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
ActualOnshoreWindGrowth2012Boom/2013Cliff(MWInstalled)
92%Drop
GeothermalConcentraVngSolarPowerHydropower
OnshoreWind
Solar
HistoricMaximumGrowth“Franken-Fleet”
AverageHistoricGrowth
Megaw
ab-Hou
rsofD
ispa
tch
EPAassumestheconstrucVonof104,317MWofwindcapacityfrom2022-30.Thisequals45,0002.3-MWturbinesandover5.2millionacres;greaterthanthecombinedlandareaofRhodeIsland,Delaware,andConnecVcut(beyondthe82,000+MWexpectedtobeinstalledasof2021–another4.1millionacres).
EPA’s Assumed Build-out of Renewable Energy (RE) For Top 10 RE States (By 2030)
Preliminary analysis; subject to revision. WA and OR, at 10 & 11 million MWh, respectively, showed lower RE needs per EPA IPM modeling of the Final rule (excl. hydro). Source: Proposed Rule EPA Data File, Goal Computation, Appendix 1; GHG Abatement Measures TSD; Final rule;
IPM model runs. Depicts top 10 states based upon 2012 renewable generation, excluding existing hydro resources. 10
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
NorthDakotaColoradoOregon
WashingtonIllinois
OklahomaMinnesota
IowaCalifornia
Texas
MillionMWh/yr
2012RenewablesAddiVonspertheProposedRuleFurtherAddiVonsPerFinalRuleIPM
PUTTING EPA’S ASSUMED WIND & SOLAR BUILD IN PERSPECTIVE (2013-2030 U.S. Build v. Current World)
Applies EPA’s incremental growth targets under the final CPP and assumes EPA’s modeled historic distribution of generation from 2013 through 2021. Sources: EPA Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures TSD; EIA, International Energy
Statistics, Renewables, 2012.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
CPPUnitedStates
World UnitedStates
China CPPERCOT
Germany Spain Italy India UnitedKingdom
France Japan Canada
CPPASSUMESTHATU.S.WILLBUILD&DISPATCH6XMOREWIND&SOLARMWhBEFORE2030THANANYNATION’SCURRENTWIND/
SOLARFLEETDISPATCHES
TEXASALONEISASSUMEDTOADDASMUCHWIND&SOLARASANY
OTHERNATIONHASNOW
MillionMWh
11
Bloomberg Graphic Implies Wind on Par with Coal in Texas Market, but . . .
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
Jun-05 Dec-05 Jun-06 Dec-06 Jun-07 Dec-07 Jun-08 Dec-08 Jun-09 Dec-09 Jun-10 Dec-10 Jun-11 Dec-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jun-15
Coal’s Great Pains??? WindPowerGrowinginTexas;CoalSVllVitallyImportant
TexasNetPowerGeneraVonFromCoal(GWh)TexasNetPowerGeneraVonFromWind(GWh)
Source:U.S.EnergyInformaVonAdministraVon,ElectricityDataBrowser.IncludesallElectricPower,includingElectricUVlityandIndependentPowerProducers"
The REAL picture is quite different
Capacity Factor of Wind over Peak = 12% (Case Study – ERCOT - First Week of August 2015)
Sources: ERCOT, Daily Wind Integration Reports; ERCOT, Item 4.1: CEO Update.
MW
*New Peak Records: Aug. 5 – 68,459 (Wind Over Peak 2,501); August 6 – 68,912 (Wind Over Peak 3,418); August 10 – 69,783 (Wind Over Peak 2,242).
ERCOT 2015 installed wind capacity is 13,060 MW.
RemainingGeneraVonWindAtPeak IdleInstalledWind
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
1-Aug 2-Aug 3-Aug 4-Aug 5-Aug 6-Aug 7-Aug 8-Aug 9-Aug 10-Aug 11-Aug
60,903 61,87166,234 65,690
68,459* 68,912* 68,693 66,602 66,35269,783* 69,625
WindO
verPeak:1,066MW
14
ALL PAIN, NO GAIN Clean Power Plan Impacts
WORLD GAIN • 0.2% reduction in CO2 concentration (see pie
chart) • Global temperature increase reduced by 0.01¡
F
• Sea level rise reduced by less than 1/100th of an inch (less than the thickness of 2 sheets of paper or 1 or 2 human hairs)
• In 2025, total annual US reductions will be offset by approximately 3 weeks of Chinese emissions
U.S. PAIN • $220 to $292 billion increase in energy sector
expenditures between 2022 and 2033 • Annual energy sector expenditures increase
between $29 to $39 billion per year • Double-digit electricity price increases in 40 states • 21% peak-year electricity price increase in Texas • Households will have $64 to $79 billion less to
spend • 47,000 megawatts of power plants forced to close
Modeled CO2 Reduction 0.98 ppm
15
Remaining CO2 Concentration 499.02 ppm
2050 GLOBAL CO2 CONCENTRATION
10°
20°
30°
40°50°
60°
IPCCProjectedIncreaseinGlobalAvg.Temp.–Upto3.6°F
0°
CurrentGlobalAvg.Temp.–58.24°F
ReducVonfromRuleBasedonEPAMethodology–0.01°F
“Pain”Sources:NERAEconomicConsulVng,EnergyandConsumerImpactsofEPA’sCleanPowerPlan,November7,2015;“Gain”Sources:“ClimateEffects”ofEPA’sFinalCleanPowerPlan,ACCCE,August2015(IntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange(IPCC)projectedconcentraVonsofCO2in2050from450to600ppm);StatementofKarenHarbert,U.S.ChamberofCommerce,U.S.HouseofRepresentaVvesComm.onScience,Space,&Technology,April15,2015;NaVonalCentersforEnvironmentalInformaVon,NOAA,GlobalAnalysis–Annual2014.
StatesOpposingEPA
StatesInterveninginSupportofEPA
StatesThatHaveNotTakenAcVon
StatesWithInternalDisagreement(e.g.Governor,Legislature,AQorneyGeneral)
CleanPowerPlanLi>ga>onStateAcVons
Top Related