EPA Proposes the Affordable Clean Energy Rule to Replace the Clean Power Plan PDF Download
Are you looking for read ebook online? Search for your book and save it on your Kindle device, PC, phones or tablets. Download EPA Proposes the Affordable Clean Energy Rule to Replace the Clean Power Plan PDF full book. Access full book title EPA Proposes the Affordable Clean Energy Rule to Replace the Clean Power Plan by Tsang. Download full books in PDF and EPUB format.
Author: Tsang
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Tsang
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Jonathan L. Ramseur
Publisher: Independently Published
ISBN: 9781790667321
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 34
Get Book Here
Book Description
In August 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed three actions in the "Affordable Clean Energy Rule" (ACE). First, EPA proposed to replace the Obama Administration's 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) with revised emission guidelines for existing fossil fuel steam electric generating units (EGUs), which are largely coal-fired units. Second, EPA proposed revised regulations to implement emission guidelines under Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 111(d). Third, EPA proposed to modify an applicability determination for New Source Review (NSR), a CAA preconstruction permitting program for new and modified stationary sources. The first action stems from EPA's finding that the CPP exceeded EPA's statutory authority by using measures that applied to the power sector rather than measures carried out within an individual facility. In the ACE rule, EPA proposed to base the "best system of emission reduction" (BSER) for existing coal-fired EGUs on heat rate improvement (HRI) measures. EPA did not propose a BSER for other types of EGUs, such as natural gas combined cycle units. In addition, EPA did not establish a numeric performance standard as the agency did in the CPP. Instead, EPA proposed a list of "candidate technologies" of HRI measures that constitute the BSER. States would establish unit-specific performance standards based on this list and other unit-specific considerations. Second, EPA proposed to revise the general implementing regulations to clarify EPA's and states' roles under Section 111(d) based on the agency's current legal interpretation that states have broad discretion to establish emissions standards consistent with the BSER. The proposed changes would, among other things, revise definitions and lengthen the time for development and review of state plans. Third, EPA proposed to revise the NSR applicability test for EGUs. According to EPA, this would prevent NSR from discouraging the installation of energy-efficiency measures. EGUs that adopt HRI measures and operate more efficiently may be used for longer time periods, thereby increasing annual emissions and potentially triggering NSR. Under ACE, NSR would not be triggered if the EGU modification did not increase emissions on an hourly basis, even if the modification increases annual emissions. EPA estimated emission changes under multiple scenarios. EPA projected that power sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) would increase under the ACE proposal compared to the CPP. EPA also projected that ACE would, in most scenarios, decrease CO2, SO2, and NOx emissions compared to a baseline without the CPP. Power sector emissions projections, comparing CPP and non-CPP scenarios, provide context for evaluating the potential impacts of the ACE proposal. The CO2 emission reduction differences between CPP and non-CPP scenarios are greater in the studies from earlier years. For example, a comparison between CPP and non-CPP scenarios from the past three Energy Information Administration analyses shows that the percentage difference has decreased from 16% (in 2016) to 8% (in 2018), reflecting the fact that many of the changes EPA expected to result from the CPP (i.e., natural gas and renewables replacing coal-fired units) have happened already due to market forces and other factors. Comparisons between modeling projections of electricity sector CO2 emissions should be made with caution, however, given potential differences in modeling assumptions about future economic conditions and underlying energy inputs (e.g., natural gas prices). EPA estimated that compared to the CPP, ACE would reduce compliance costs and yield lower emission reductions, thereby increasing climate-related damages and human health damages ("forgone benefits"). According to EPA, the estimated value of the forgone benefits would outweigh the compliance cost savings when replacing the CPP with ACE, yielding net costs.
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Carbon dioxide mitigation
Languages : en
Pages : 130
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: James Fisher
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Air quality
Languages : en
Pages : 3
Get Book Here
Book Description
On August 21, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Affordable Clean Energy (ACE) rule. If adopted, the ACE rule would replace the 2015 Clean Power Plan (CPP) in establishing guidelines for states to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing coal-fired electric generation Units (EGU). The EPA accepted comments on the proposed rule through October 31, 2018. The public hearing for the proposed rule was held on October 1, 2018.
Author: United States. Congress. House. Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Energy and Power
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Carbon dioxide mitigation
Languages : en
Pages : 248
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: Congressional Service
Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781986425582
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 26
Get Book Here
Book Description
In 2015, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Clean Power Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil-fueled electric power plants, it concluded that the benefits of reducing emissions would outweigh the costs by a substantial margin under the scenarios analyzed. EPA estimated benefits ranging from $31 billion to $54 billion in 2030 and costs ranging from $5.1 billion to $8.4 billion in 2030, when the rule would be fully implemented. In proposing to repeal the rule in October 2017, EPA revised the estimates of both its benefits and costs, finding in most cases that the benefits of the proposed repeal would outweigh the costs of the proposed repeal. However, EPA found that under other assumptions, the costs of the proposed repeal would outweigh the benefits of the proposed repeal. This report examines the changes in EPA's methodology that led to the revised conclusions about how benefits compare to costs. Three changes to the benefits estimates of the proposed repeal drive the agency's new conclusions. First, it considered only domestic benefits of the Clean Power Plan in its main analysis, excluding benefits that occur outside the United States. Second, it used different discount rates, including one higher rate, than the 2015 analysis to state the present value of future climate benefits expected from the Clean Power Plan. Third, the analysis reduced some estimates of the human health "co-benefits"-that is, the benefits resulting from pollutant reductions not directly targeted by the Clean Power Plan. Specifically, several scenarios assumed no health benefits below specified thresholds for some air pollutants. EPA also changed the accounting treatment of demand-side energy efficiency savings. EPA's 2015 analysis treated savings from energy efficiency measures as a negative cost, whereas the 2017 analysis treated them as a benefit. Using the terminology of the proposed repeal, EPA moved energy savings from the cost savings estimate to the forgone benefits estimate. There was no change in the difference between benefits and costs because the benefits and costs increased by the same amount. This change took on more significance in a separate analysis that EPA conducted to analyze the cost savings of the proposed repeal. EPA based one set of benefit-cost estimates of the proposed repeal on its 2015 power sector modeling, which does not reflect changes that have since occurred in the power sector. EPA based the other set of benefit-cost estimates on more recent power sector projections from the Annual Energy Outlook 2017. The power sector changes subsequent to 2015 are potentially important and include changes in expected electricity demand, expected growth in electricity generation by renewable energy technologies, retirements of older generating units, changes in the prices and availability of different fuels and renewables, and state and federal regulations. While modeling differences render the two sets of estimates incomparable, both sets of estimates show a range of costs exceeding benefits (i.e., net costs), and benefits exceeding costs (i.e., net benefits) of the proposed repeal. EPA stated that it plans to update the power sector modeling and make it available for public comment before it finalizes the proposed repeal. This forthcoming analysis may show the extent to which updated power sector projections may change EPA's benefit-cost estimates.
Author: Kate C. Shouse
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
Author: The Law The Law Library
Publisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781723440564
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 602
Get Book Here
Book Description
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources - Electric Utility Generating Units (US Environmental Protection Agency Regulation) (EPA) (2018 Edition) The Law Library presents the complete text of the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources - Electric Utility Generating Units (US Environmental Protection Agency Regulation) (EPA) (2018 Edition). Updated as of May 29, 2018 In this action, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is establishing final emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). Specifically, the EPA is establishing: Carbon dioxide (CO 2) emission performance rates representing the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for two subcategories of existing fossil fuel-fired EGUs-fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and stationary combustion turbines; state-specific CO 2 goals reflecting the CO 2 emission performance rates; and guidelines for the development, submittal and implementation of state plans that establish emission standards or other measures to implement the CO 2 emission performance rates, which may be accomplished by meeting the state goals. This final rule will continue progress already underway in the U.S. to reduce CO 2 emissions from the utility power sector. This book contains: - The complete text of the Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources - Electric Utility Generating Units (US Environmental Protection Agency Regulation) (EPA) (2018 Edition) - A table of contents with the page number of each section
Author: National Research Council
Publisher: National Academies Press
ISBN: 0309086094
Category : Medical
Languages : en
Pages : 187
Get Book Here
Book Description
EPA estimates that thousands of premature deaths and cases of illnesses may be avoided by reducing air pollution. At the request of Congress, this report reviews the scientific basis of EPA's methods used in estimating the public health benefits from its air pollution regulations.
Author: Melinda E. Taylor
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Get Book Here
Book Description
On June 2, 2014, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a plan to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from existing fossil fuel power plants based on its authority under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. ยง 7411(d)). The proposal, known as the Clean Power Plan or 111(d) rule, will require each state to develop a plan for reducing the rate of CO2 emissions from its electric power system. As currently proposed, the Clean Power Plan requires states to meet interim emissions reduction targets beginning in 2020, with final targets to be achieved by 2030. The Clean Power Plan envisages that electric power companies will reduce their emissions by, among other things, switching to lower carbon fuel sources and increasing investment in energy efficiency. Currently, coal supplies approximately 40 percent of the electricity delivered to the grid in the U.S. Reducing the carbon intensity of the electric power system will mean increased reliance on natural gas and alternative sources of power, such as nuclear, wind, and solar. To some extent, this transition is already underway, even in the absence of federal standards. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that, between 2004 and 2014, coal-fired electricity generation declined by nearly 20 percent. Over the same period, natural gas-fired generation increased by almost 58 percent and non-hydroelectric renewable generation by over 200 percent. The Clean Power Plan promises to accelerate this transition away from coal towards natural gas and renewables. Given this, the Clean Power Plan has been highly controversial. EPA received approximately two million public comments from states, industry leaders, environmental groups, and public citizens with a wide range of opinions on the best options to proceed with the Clean Power Plan. To help inform the on-going policy debate, from April to June 2015, the Kay Bailey Hutchison Center for Energy, Law, and Business at The University of Texas at Austin conducted a survey on key aspects of the Clean Power Plan. 66 valid survey responses were received. The survey respondents included power company executives, industry consultants, state environmental officials, state energy officials, utility regulator staff, and regional transmission organization staff from various locations. Responses were not collected from every state. Survey respondents were not asked whether they support or oppose the Clean Power Plan. Rather, the survey focused on issues relating to implementation of the Plan. The survey results are summarized in this report. Key findings of the survey include: (1) The overwhelming majority of survey respondents favored the development of state compliance plans rather than federally-developed plans. (2) There was broad support, among survey respondents, for mass-based trading programs. Support was found in both Democratic- and Republican-controlled states but was higher in the former than the latter. (3) Survey respondents were divided on the use of renewable portfolio standards and energy efficiency measures. These policies were popular among energy and environmental officials, particularly in Democratic-run states. However, few power company executives supported use of the policies. (4) Most survey respondents favored market-based compliance options. 68 percent of respondents indicated that they preferred mass-based trading over other market-based options. 11 percent of respondents listed rate-based trading as their preferred option. (5) Almost two-thirds of survey respondents favored adoption of mass-based emissions targets, arguing that they are easier to implement than the rate-based targets proposed by EPA. Others, however, expressed concern about the difficulties of converting any rate-based target into a mass-based form. There was also some concern about a mass-based target's perceived limits on future electricity growth. (6) The bulk of survey respondents supported interstate cooperation on the Clean Power Plan, with 90 percent arguing that states should develop multi-state plans or single-state plans that preserve the option to trade across state lines.
