Abby L. Harvey
GHG Monitor
6/6/2014
Officials in all states are mulling over the proposed emissions guidelines for existing fossil fuel fired power plants released this week by the Environmental Protection Agency. Those who have already enacted their own measures to reduce carbon emissions have expressed confidence (though in some cases cautious) over their ability to meet the emissions targets laid out in the document. The proposed regulations take a state-by-state approach, setting target reductions ranging from 11 percent to 72 percent below 2012 levels which, according to the regulations, will total a nation-wide reduction in carbon emissions of 30 percent below 2005 levels. States must submit to the EPA a plan to meet their targets, the proposed regulations say, or the EPA will develop a plan for them. However, existing measures will be acceptable in these plans. “Plans that do directly assure that affected [energy generating units] achieve all of the required emission reductions (such as the mass-based programs being implemented in California and the [Regional Greenhouse Gas initiative] RGGI states) would also be approvable provided that they meet other key requirements, such as achieving the required emission reductions over the appropriate timeframes,” the proposed regulations say.
The state of Washington has the highest reduction requirement by percentage at 72 percent, but have confidence that they will be able to meet that goal due to steps they have already taken to reduce their emissions. “I think these targets are achievable,” said Dave Danner, Chair of the Utilities and Transportation Commission in Washington. ”We only have one coal plant here in the state of Washington and we’ve already negotiated an agreement with them between the state and TransAlta, the Canadian company, to close it by 2025. So that’ll take a big chunk out of our obligation. We’ve been proactive and so it’s a little easier going forward. If we had not been proactive then it would be less easy.”
Other states EPA has singled out as examples throughout the proposed rule include those involved in RGGI. An official from New Hampshire, one of the RGGI states, said that until the full scope of the document can be digested, the state remains cautiously optimistic that their participation in RGGI will be enough to achieve their targets. “We have a great appreciation for EPA’s very comprehensive outreach and as one of the RGGI states, we supplied comments and input to EPA, back last fall, indicating that we were hopeful that RGGI would be one option for meeting the 111(d) guidelines and first glance, that appears to be in there but in 1000 pages the devil’s in the details. It’s going to take us a while to absorb that,” he said. New Hampshire has a reduction target of 46 percent. New Jersey made news in 2011 when the state decided to pull out of RGGI, but regardless of that decision, emissions in the state have continued to decrease, according to Larry Hajna, a spokesman for the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Hajna also said that the state has made great strides outside of the RGGI program. New Jersey’s reduction target is 43 percent.
RGGI and the state of California, who’s reduction target is 23 percent, have used market based approaches to lower their emissions and have in turn provided examples which could potentially be modified and implemented elsewhere in the country. “While California’s emission trading program, like its state emission limit, is multi-sector in scope, the state projects that the emissions trading program and related complementary measures will reduce power sector GHG emissions to less than 80 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent by 2025, a 25 percent reduction from 2005 power sector emission levels,” the proposed rule said of the California system. A spokesman from the California Environmental Protection Agency suggested that not only could other states learn from the California plan, but if a regional or multi-state system were to be set up to include California, member states could share the benefits of California’s emissions reductions.
EPA tried to make the path to meeting targets fair, a group of senior EPA officials said during a conference call following the announcement of the regulations. “The goals apply to each state based on where they are, so these measures that we used to build the targets for the states apply depending on where your starting point is,” an official said. “A state that has a lot of coal resources can look at the range of things that are available, but their target is based on the fact that there is a lot of coal in that state already. There’s an expectation that there will be forward progress on renewables and energy efficiency, or the states will find other things to do in order to meet the targets, but these targets, since they are tailored to where every state is, are very achievable and reasonable for states that have a lot of coal and for states that don’t have a lot of coal.”
Many coal states have released statements since the announcement of the regulations suggesting otherwise, however. “As a coal producing state, North Dakota will be especially hard hit by these new rules,” Senator John Hoeven (R-N.D.) wrote. “Our state’s seven coal-fired power plants provide nearly 80 percent of our residential and commercial energy needs and provide power to surrounding states in our region, as well. The lignite coal industry in North Dakota employs 4,097 people and their families, and generates $3.5 billion in annual business activity. An additional 13,347 individuals work to support and supply the lignite industry with goods and services, for a total employment of 17,444.” North Dakota’s reduction target is 11 percent.
