Background and Timeline

Assessing the Foundations of a State Plan:A Stakeholder Perspective

Industry Challenges: Implementation

Understanding the Building Blocks to BSER

Industry Challenges: Broad Implications

EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan would regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of existing generating units through state-level CO2 emission rate standards. EPA estimates that the rule will reduce total U.S. power sector emissions by 30% from 2005 levels by 2030.

FLEXIBILITY IN TECHNOLOGY

Affected sources have the opportunity to advise the states on the potential resources and related costs for reducing emission rates, and how they may impact competitive position and power markets.

FLEXIBILITY IN GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE

Assessing the relative costs of compliance inpotential partner states will help affected sources determine whether they will be buyers or sellers in a multi-state program, and how allowance trading or multi-state averaging will impactcompliance costs and electricity prices.

Each state is allowed to determine its own optimal plan design and components. With this flexibility, state regulators will need input from generation owners, system operators, energy regulators, and other stakeholders to design plans that achieve compliance while taking advantage of opportunities to minimize compliance costs and improvecompetitive advantage.

The Clean Air Act requires that EPA identify the “best system of emission reduction” (BSER), taking intoaccount the costs and benefits associated with potential reduction opportunities in CO2 emission rates.

The Clean Power Plan’s four “building blocks” of BSER include:

Heat rate improvement to

reduce emission rates of

coal generating facilities

Fuel switching, or system

redispatch from coal to

natural gas

Increasing generation from

renewables and preserving

generation from nuclear units

Growth in end-use energy

efficiency (EE) to displace

emitting generation

States have the option of choosing multiple pathways to reduce emissions to meet their target standards. These

pathways include “inside the fence” measures at specific facilities, such as heat rate improvements, and “beyond the

fence” measures, such as developing incremental renewable generation and energy efficiency.

Utilities and other entities across the energy sector will feel

the impacts of particular design choices in state plans for

years to come. Electric generating units (EGUs) will likely

face a potentially wide range of directly enforceable

requirements and revenue impacts as part of those plans.

Natural gas suppliers, coal suppliers, pipeline owners, and

others will be affected through impacts on fuel use and

electricity prices.

POWER PRICES MOVE DEPENDING ON THE APPROACH THAT STATES ADOPTThe form of regulation, particularly for those programs creating a price on CO2 emissions, will move electricity prices and, therefore, generator revenues. A few potential scenarios include:

MULTI-STATE MANAGEMENT REQUIRES ATTENTION

Planning efforts will be particularly challenging for organizations that own or manage generation sources in multiple states. Companies could find themselves keeping up with a host of idiosyncratic state policies across their fleet, especially if they have a presence in states which fall into more than one RTO footprint. The regulatory approaches in neighboring states could also create inconsistent market signals at the borders, or along the seams of state and regional programs, that are equally important in driving market outcomes.

The achievement of the standard through a tradable emission rate limit could result in credits to generation sources

that emit below their state standard, potentially putting downward pressure on wholesale prices in some markets.

A portfolio approach that requires renewable generation through an RPS, energy efficiency through an efficiency

standard, and emission reductions at the generation source, could limit impacts on wholesale electricity prices and be

primarily felt through retail rates.

A plan with a mass-based cap with trading would add a positive dispatch cost to all emitting units, and, all else equal,

apply upward pressure to wholesale and retail power prices.

Generators in states that opt to join multi-state groups may benefit from lower cost compliance options in the partner

states, or from generating emission reduction credits for sale to partner states.

INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS WILL SHIFT

The Clean Power Plan may shift demands and stresses on energy infrastructure. For instance:

EPA projected coal unit retirements

to double by 2030 relative to a

business-as-usual case, which

could impact system reliability and

capacity market dynamics.

Generators will also need to know

whether they have access to

adequate gas pipeline infrastructure,

and the delivered cost of the fuel,

should they need to rely on gas-fired

generation to a greater degree.

Similarly, companies seeking to deploy

more wind will need to examine

whether or not there is adequate

transmission capacity to support

development.

States seeking to deploy more

distributed generation (DG)—such as

solar PV, and CHP—will need to

understand the impacts of high DG

penetration on the distribution grid,

and how energy storage fits this plan.

Putting it all Together

About the Authors

Given the high near-term likelihood of a regulatory penalty for CO2 emissions, utilities and generators would be prudent to account for a carbon price in their strategy and planning, and to determine what form of enforcement and regulation scheme would work best for them.

ICF provides the type of integrated analysis that utilities and other stakeholders will require to address the multitude of compliance options and issues with their states. We continue to analyze all facets of the proposed rule tounderstand the relative contributions of the building block components to state compliance options, as well as the impacts of the rule on individual generating assets and wholesale power markets.

The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan would regulate emissions of CO2 from existing generation sources, forcing states and companies to make critical strategic choices in

the near future that will affect power prices, power system reliability, natural gas markets, and the need for new infrastructure.

EPA’s proposal allows states to join into compliance groups. Collaborating with an existing program, such as the Regional

Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), may ease the rulemaking burden, although even RGGI may require some changes. The

formation of a new multi-state group might add administrative and regulatory complexity, but also may improve economic

efficiency by expanding the number of compliance options through trading within a cap-and-trade or credit program.

2015 Mid Summer

final rule from EPA

Initial state plans

are due to EPA for

review in 2016

Final plans due for

states acting alone

in 2017

For states in

multi-state compliance

groups, plans are due

in 2018

2015 2016 2017 2018

FLEXIBILITY IN POLICY MECHANISMS

States and affected entities may reduce compliance costs by understanding the pros and cons of each type of policy design and the point(s) of regulation with respect to measuring and achieving compliance.

EPA specifies state targets in the form of emission rate standards (in lb/MWh) but allows states to translate those

standards to emissions mass caps. However, submitting a plan with a mass cap will require its own careful analysis, as

the projected cap will determine the eventual stringency and compliance costs for the state and may constrain

generation growth.

Utilities could be required to fill new roles as operators of new or expanded programs. For instance, a state plan could require its utilities to develop new end-use efficiency and distributed generation incentive and potentially deployment programs. In states with expanded programs of this nature, utilities may have higher implementation costs and face greater program complexity. In states developing new programs, utilities must determine approaches that impose the least administrative burden. In both cases, developing

the optimal program design will require analysis of the potential compliance resources, locational impacts, development of a plan to reach and encourage adoption, outreach to participants, measurement and verification of uptake, and program administration.

STATE 1STATE 2

STATE 3

state regional

More InformationChris MacCrackenSteve FinePhilip MihlmesterDavid PicklesAnkit Saraf

Clean Power Plan

EPA’s 111(d) Clean Power Plan Could Increase Energy Efficiency Impacts, Net Benefits, and Total Value

© Copyright 1992–2015 ICF International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 9300 Lee Highway, Fairfax, VA. www.ic�.com

EPA’s Clean Power Plan:Challenges Ahead for Sources and States