5.4. ERMUSR 02-10-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11111111/1 IVIIVIWt state that by 2030, 10 percent of the retail electric sales to 2020. EPA's treatment of early adopter states in the in Minnesota be generated by solar energy. By 2020, at final rule will have huge implications for Minnesota. least 1.5 percent of retail electric sales made by investor- owned utilities must come from solar energy. Choice of � � � baseline period Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program Results Sherco 3, A review of Minnesota data clearly shows both how Minnesota's effective Minnesota's efforts have been and how severe newest and the penalty can be for an early adopter state. most efficient I: - coal plant 2005—2012 (jointly owned •y` Figure 1 (facing page) shows a 28 percent reduction by Xcel Energy in Minnesota's annual power sector CO2 emissions and Southern from 2005 to 2012.As we point out later, Minnesota's Minnesota The Southern Minnesota Municipal Power newest and most efficient coal plant was off line during Municipal Agency owns 41 percent of Sherco 3.The all of 2012, which makes Minnesota's CO2 emissions Power Agency plant is co-owned and operated by Xcel for that year abnormally low. If we assume that half (SMMPA))was Energy. of the reduction from 2011 to 2012 is due to the Sherco off-line during 3 outage and half due to the impact of Minnesota all of 2012, energy policy, the reduction is still 21 percent. The the year used by EPA as the baseline in the CPP.As a Great Recession had an impact on electricity sales, result, Minnesota's mandated CO2 reduction in the plan but total retail sales have returned to pre-recession is substantially larger than it would be if EPA had used levels, so any recession impact on CO2 reduction in the typical Minnesota annual coal generation in the plan. 2012 data is minimal. To be conservative, we can state EPA needs to allow Minnesota to select a baseline period with confidence that Minnesota achieved a genuine that provides an accurate picture of our coal generation greenhouse gas reduction of 15 percent to 20 percent in a typical year. EPA's decision on the baseline issue from 2005 to 2012. will have a major impact on Minnesota's mandated CO2 reduction in the final version of the CPP. 2013—2020 Minnesota will continue its aggressive greenhouse • Cross-state ownership of renewables. The CPP treats all gas reduction policy during the eight-year period from renewables located in a state as essentially"belonging" 2013 through 2020. In 2020 Xcel will be at 30 percent to that state. But ownership of renewable energy renewable and all other power suppliers will be at 20 projects isn't that simple. Minnesota power suppliers percent renewable, for a statewide renewable portfolio have developed or contracted with renewable projects of 24.6 percent. Minnesota's aggressive energy efficiency in other states in order to meet the requirements of requirements and energy efficiency performance our renewable energy standard. Conversely, utilities standards for buildings will provide increasing levels from other states have developed renewable projects of greenhouse gas reductions with each passing year. in Minnesota. EPA will have to clarify how renewable Minnesota energy policy will provide additional energy projects are to be allocated among states that greenhouse gas reductions from 2013 through 2020 of 10 have legitimate reasons to claim the output under percent to 15 percent. the CPP.Any decision the EPA makes will produce winners and losers, and will have a significant impact on Unfair treatment of early adopter states Minnesota's ultimate obligations under the CPP. Minnesota is on track to achieve reductions in CO2 emissions from electric generation of perhaps 30 percent MMUA Position during the fifteen year period from 2005 to 2020.And As proposed, EPA's Clean Power Plan presents very none of these reductions will count toward achieving our serious problems for Minnesota.We can only hope that goal under the CPP.This result completely disregards EPA will address these issues in the final version of the substantial reductions in CO2 that are being achieved rule, which is expected in mid-summer 2015. Only when in Minnesota and other early adopter states. Minnesota the rule is final can Minnesota begin in earnest on the would be forced to achieve a 41 percent reduction in development of its CPP plan. It would be premature and CO2 emissions between 2020 and 2030 after reducing unwise to make any changes in state laws that would be emissions by perhaps 30 percent in the years leading up affected by the rule until then. 2015 State Position Statements/5