6.1a ERMUSR 03-13-2017 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

state goals between 771 and 1,305 lb CO2/MWh based on the are rejected or that fail to submit a final plan would be subject weighted average of existing fossil-fuel fired generation in the to a federal plan imposed by EPA. state and provides equivalent mass-based goals in short tons Compliance with the rule's final goals would be required of CO2.This is a substantial change from the proposed rule, by 2030,although the final reporting period is actually from which did not establish performance rates that would directly January 1,2030,to December 31,2031.The rule imposes two apply to EGUs and only proposed mandatory state goals.These year compliance periods thereafter.In response to stakeholder changes resulted in a range of state goals that is much narrower input,EPA pushed back the date for compliance with the inter- than in the proposed rule and impose more stringent goals on im goals.There are three compliance periods beginning in 2022 states that are heavily reliant on coal-fired power. and states can adopt them as is or adjust them in their state Under Section 111(d)of the CAA,EPA may establish plans.Under the proposed rule,compliance with the interim procedures for states to develop plans to establish performance goals began in 2020 and front-loaded the emissions reductions standards for an air pollutant from existing sources.The state (commonly referred to as the"cliff"). plans must"establish standards of performance that reflect the Since publication of the final rule in the Federal Register on degree of emission limitation reduction achievable through the October 23,2015,more than 150 state and industry petition- application of the'best system of emissions reduction' [BSER] ers have challenged the legality of the rule in the U.S. Court of that,taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit("D.C.Circuit"). and any non-air quality health and environmental impacts and Many of those petitioners requested that the D.C.Circuit stay energy requirements,the Administrator determines has been implementation of the rule during the litigation.In January adequately demonstrated."3 In the final rule,EPA determined 2016,the D.C. Circuit rejected the stay request,which was "that the BSER is the combination of emission rate improve- then made to the U.S.Supreme Court.On February 9,2016, ments and limitations on overall emissions at affected EGUs the U.S.Supreme Court granted an emergency stay of the that can be accomplished through"three building blocks:4(1) Clean Power Plan that puts implementation of the rule on hold improving heat rates at affected coal-fired steam EGUs; (2) while the courts hear legal challenges to it.The stay will apply substituting increased generation from lower emitting existing while the U.S.Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia natural gas combined cycle units for generation from high- Circuit reviews the rule,as well as any future appeal to the U.S. er-emitting affected steam generating units;and(3)substituting Supreme Court.While the stay is in effect,neither EPA nor increased generation from new zero-emitting renewable energy the states can enforce any of the deadlines or requirements in generating capacity for generation from affected fossil fuel-fired the final rule,nor will states be penalized for missing a deadline generating units.The fourth building block on energy efficiency or requirement. Oral argument in the litigation occurred in included in the proposed rule was dropped in the final rule. September 2016.As of this writing,the court has not issued a EPA then calculated the amount of emission reduction achiev- decision.In addition,the Trump Administration has signaled able through application of these three building blocks. its interest in eliminating the CPP.It is unclear thus far how the Under the final rule,states have to submit initial state plans new Administration will go about doing so. to EPA by September 6,2016.The initial plan must contain a non-binding indication of what type of plan and approaches the state intends to adopt,the reason why an extension is needed Congressional Activity (assuming the state is seeking an extension of time to submit There was a lot of interest in the 114th Congress in EPA's efforts a plan),and evidence of public engagement.An extension to regulate CO2 emissions from the electric utility industry.The is deemed granted if EPA does not object within 90 days of House Energy&Commerce and Senate Environment&Public receipt.States must submit progress reports to EPA on Septem- Works (EPW) Committees,which have jurisdiction over Clean ber 6,2017,with final state plans due by September 6,2018. Air Act issues,held numerous hearings in the 114th and previ- EPA has a year to approve a final state plan,which is required ous Congresses on the proposed and final rules,their potential to include information such as a list of affected EGUs and their impact to ratepayers,businesses,and the economy,and the emission standards,a trigger mechanism for corrective mea- Obama Administration's international efforts on climate change sures,if interim goals are not achieved,and recordkeeping and and whether those efforts are driving the Clean Power Plan. reporting requirements,among others.States whose final plans Both committees also approved legislation in 2015 that would have put implementation of the final existing plant rule on hold 3 See footnote 1 of the final rule located at p.64664 of the Federal Register,Vo. until the courts decide on its legality. 80,No.205,10/23/2015. In addition,the House and Senate approved a disapproval 4.P.64707 of the Federal Register,Vo.80,No.205,10/23/2015 resolution under the Congressional Review Act(S.J. Res.24), 40 PubUcPower.org 222