Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
10/31/2014
After receiving numerous comments regarding various aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions standards for existing coal-fired power plants, including concerns with the 2020 interim goal “cliff” and the use of a single year of data in developing state goals, EPA released a Notice of Data Availability this week seeking to address these issues. “EPA has heard a wide range of ideas and issues from states, stakeholders and the public about the proposed Clean Power Plan to cut carbon pollution and fight climate change,” Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, Janet McCabe told reporters during a media call. “The NODA continues this important dialogue. I want to emphasize that the NODA does not change the proposal that we put out in June. It simply discusses some key ideas that we’ve been hearing consistently from a diverse set of stakeholders. The NODA gives us a chance to ensure that all stakeholders and the public are aware of these issues and can consider them in their comments.”
While the NODA explores new ideas, it will not result in a further extension to the comment deadline for the proposed regulations, which will set state-specific carbon emission reduction goals and require the states to develop action plans to meet those goals. The deadline for comments was initially Oct. 16, but was extended in September to Dec. 1. “We do think that this is out in time for people to incorporate these into the comments that they’re working on to get us by Dec. 1,” McCabe said. “These are ideas that a lot of people are talking about and thinking about, so we wanted to get them out now for that very reason." One more NODA can be expected in the near future, McCabe said, which will address how to convert the rate-based targets to mass-based targets.
2020 Interim Goal “Cliff” Addressed
Several stakeholders have noted that the interim goals in the proposed regulations, which call for a certain percentage of reductions to be made between the years of 2020-2029, present various problems. “Some stakeholders have expressed concern that, as proposed, the interim goals, which govern emission reductions over the 2020-2029 period, do not provide enough flexibility for some states … to choose measures other than relying heavily on re-dispatch from fossil steam generation (e.g., coal-, oil-, or gas-fired boilers) to natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) units to achieve the required reductions,” according to the NODA.
The NODA notes a few suggestions that have been received to address the “cliff” issue. “With regard to the suggestion that early reductions could be used as a way to ease the 2020-2029 glide path, the agency believes that the existing proposal provides both stakeholders and the EPA the latitude to consider this concept,” the NODA says. The NODA also noted stakeholder suggestions that building block two, increased use of low-emitting power sources such as natural gas, be phased in more slowly. “Some stakeholders have expressed concerns with the approach that the EPA used to determine states’ interim goals and have stated that, notwithstanding the flexibility provided in the proposal, significant shifts of generation away from coal-fired generators to NGCC units (as calculated under building block [two]) will be necessary by 2020 and will be difficult for at least some states to reasonably achieve in that timeframe,” the NODA says.
The NODA notes two suggested adjustments to the proposed regulations recommended by stakeholders that could address these issues. “First, a phase-in schedule could be developed for building block [two] on the basis of whether, and to what extent, any additional infrastructure improvements (e.g., natural gas pipeline expansion or transmission improvements) are needed to support more use of existing natural gas-fired generation,” and second, “building block [two] could be modified to respond to stakeholder concerns about the pace with which generation in some states may need to be shifted from higher-emitting to lower-emitting units. In particular, stakeholders have expressed a concern that shifting generation away from existing generating assets, particularly coal-fired [Energy Generating Units], could, in some situations, result in limiting cost-effective options,” the NODA says.
John Lyons, Assistant Secretary for Climate Policy with the Energy and Environment Cabinet for the Kentucky Department for Environmental Protection, recently expressed some of these concerns at an event hosted by Resourced for the Future. The release of the NODA indicates that the EPA is listening to stakeholders, Lyons told GHG Monitor this week. “This gives us a little more to comment on. I’m not exactly sure at this point what it does, or what it could do. I guess it leaves kind of an option open for us to consider stranded assets, because that’s one of the issues that a lot of states have, is all these plants are putting on controls for mercury and toxics and you don’t want to make all of these literally billions of dollars worth of investments only to have the plant shut down in the interim years there,” Lyon said.
Use of Single Year of Emissions Data to Develop Goals Questioned
The EPA’s state goals were based on emissions data from 2012. This data was used by the EPA to determine what level of emissions reduction each state could achieve. This method has been questioned, as 2012 may not have been a typical year for every state. “A number of stakeholders have raised concerns over the use of 2012 as the single data year for calculating interim and final goals. The EPA has identified several approaches that stakeholders may want to consider,” the NODA says.
To help stakeholders develop their comments, EPA has provided emissions data from 2010 and 2011. “One of the issues that’s been raised to us is focusing on 2012 as the year where the consideration of the targets begins and [it has been] suggested that we might want to use more than just one single year, so in response to that, and to make sure that everybody has the ability to look at this information, we wanted to make sure that 2010 and 2011 data were available as well,” McCabe said.
This concern was raised recently by David Thornton, Assistant Commissioner with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “EPA raises a lot of ideas and options in the NODA,” Thornton told GHG Monitor this week. “It will take some time to sort through and make good sense of them. I think this NODA does reflect well on the fact that EPA has been listening carefully, and realizes their initial proposal could be improved upon … I think the fact that they are specifically re-raising the question of baseline data does go towards addressing one of the concerns we have been raising,” he said.
