Post on 02-Jun-2018
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
1/36
Assessing the Impact of EPAs CleanPower Plan
Mike Nasi
Jackson Walker L.L.P.mnasi@jw.com512.236.2216
September 25, 2014
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
2/36
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Overview of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Limits
Impacts to Texas Coal Generation (Block 2)
xpectat ons egar ng exas enewa eGeneration (Block 3)
Going Forward
47
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
3/36
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
Overview of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Limits
Impacts to Texas Coal Generation (Block 2)
xpectat ons egar ng exas enewa eGeneration (Block 3)
Going Forward
48
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
4/36
Overview of EPAsCAA 111(d) Rule
EPAs existing power plant rule proposal;published in the Fed. Reg. June 18, 2014.
EPA is referring to the rule as the Clean Power
49
Plan. EPAs stated goal is to reduce CO2 emissions
by 30% by 2030, compared to 2005.
All emissions reductions targets (and modelingdata) are based on 2012 data.
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
5/36
Overview of EPAs
CAA 111(b) Rule
EPAs new power plant rule proposal;re-published in Fed. Reg. on January 8, 2014.
Gas-fired power plant emissions limit of 1,000 lbs
50
2
- ,CO2/MWH (violates EPACT provisions re: subsidies).
Far below EPAs own assessment of newest coal plant limitachievability (1,800 lbs CO2/MWh).
Would require partial carbon capture and sequestration as bestsystem of emissions reduction (BSER) for coal plants.
In effect, prevents new coal-fired power plant
development.
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
6/36
Overview of EPAsCAA 111(d) Rule
EPAs existing power plant rule proposal;published in the Fed. Reg. June 18, 2014.
EPAs stated goal is to reduce CO2 emissions
51
by 30% by 2030, compared to 2005. All emissions reductions targets (and modeling
data) are based on 2012 data.
Original October 16, 2014 Comment Deadlineextended 45 days New Deadline Dec. 1
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
7/36
Projected 111(d) Rule Schedule
Rulemaking Judicial Review**
June 18, 2014 Rule published in Fed. Reg.
Oct. 16, 2014 End of 120-day comment period
June 1, 2015 EPAs target date to finalizerule
June 2015 Suits filed in Federal Court(likely D.C. Circuit)
June 2015 July 2016
Filing suits for stayIssuance of stay??
June 30, 2016 Complete SIPs are due forsingle-state plans that havenot obtained a 1-year
extension Initial SIPs are due for
states with 1- or 2-yearextensions, as applicable
July 2016 D.C. Circuit decision ?
* Deadlines for states with exemptions.** Timelines are based on the recent legal challenges to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 52
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
8/36
Rulemaking Judicial Review**
June 30,2017*Complete
SIP due for single-state plans
Nov. 2017 Oral argument in U.S.Supreme Court
March 2018 U.S. Su reme Court
Projected 111(d) Rule ScheduleCont
decision
June 30,2018*
Complete SIP due for stateswith multi-state plans
2020 2029(average)
First-Phase (Interim) StateTargets must be met on
average. Texas 853 lb/MWh
2030 Second-Phase (Final) StateTarget must be met. Texas 791 lb/MWh
* Deadlines for states with exemptions.** Timelines are based on the recent legal challenges to the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 53
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
9/36
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Overview of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Limits
Impacts to Texas Coal Generation (Block 2)
xpectat ons egar ng exas enewa eGeneration (Block 3)
Going Forward
54
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
10/36
Block 1
Heat rate improvements
Block 2
EPA Used Four Building Blocks to Set
Mandate for Each StateExample: Texas Emission Rate (lb CO2/MWh)
-4% from assumed improvements inefficiency at coal plants of 6%
2012 Texas Baseline1,292 (too low to begin with dueto use of 2012 baseline data)
49
-20% from increasing CCGT utilization to70% (from 45% in Texas 2012); shifts258
e- spa c o ee
Block 3More renewables, nuclear
Block 4Demand-side reductions
2030 Texas Target 791 (856 by 2020!)
72 million MWh from coal to gas1
-10% from EPA-derived renewable target of20% + keep at risk nuclear capacity
-5% from reducing end-user consumptionby 1.5% annually
124
70
EPAs 2030 state targets vary from approximately 200 to 1,800 lb CO2/MWh.
Source: IHS CERA:
Digesting EPA
s Proposed Clean Power Plan
; June 10, 2014 Webcast1. 72 million MWh is 52% of Texas 2012 coal generation (equivalent to over 10,000 MW at 80% capacity factor) 55
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
11/36
States Proportion of Total CO2 Reductions
from Electric Generation by 2030 (Budgeted Rate)Texas - 17.87%
791 lb/MWh
Florida - 7.06%740 lb/MWh
South Carolina -
Michigan - 2.28%1,161 lb/MWh
North Carolina -2.25%
992 lb/MWh
C2
2% ..
C2E.
Graph does not include Alaska and Hawaii because data was not available. Vermont is excluded because it is not covered by EPA's rule. The following states
were excluded from the graph because they are anticipated to have gains in CO2 emissions: North Dakota (1.0%), Kentucky (3.0%), California (7.0%), Montana(8.0%), Kansas (10.0%), Nebraska (10.0%), Missouri (14.0%), and Rhode Island (37.0%). Sources: EPA Data File - 2012 Unit-Level Data Using the eGRID
Methodology & Bloomberg, New Energy Finance analysis (for the rate-to-mass conversion on which percentages are based).
Louisiana - 6.20%883 lb/MWh
Pennsylvania - 5.21%1,052 lb/MWh
Alabama - 4.44%1,059 lb/MWh
Georgia - 3.65%834 lb/MWhArkansas - 3.62%
910 lb/MWhOklahoma - 3.40%895 lb/MWh
New York - 3.37%549 lb/MWh
Illinois - 3.08%1,271 lb/MWh
Mississippi - 3.01%692 lb/MWh
Arizona - 2.84%702 lb/MWh
Minnesota - 2.81%873 lb/MWh
Indiana - 2.55%1,531 lb/MWh
Wyoming - 2.52%1,714 lb/MWh
Wisconsin - 2.49%1,203 lb/MWh
.772 lb/MWh
56
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
12/36
Comparison of Raw State CO2 Emission
Rates (lbs/MWh)
2051.5
1158.9 1138.0
1500.0
2000.0
2500.0
This rate is Lower than 18States Final (2030)
Budgeted Rate underEPAs Clean Power Plan.
Source: EPA Data File - 2012 Unit-Level Data Using the eGRID Methodology; Includes Vermont, which is not subject toExisting-Source GHG Rule.
167.0
0.0
500.0
1000.0
D
C
H
A
F
A
G
A
(#25)
D
C
A
C
A
H
C
D
C
57
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
13/36
States Assumed CO2 Reductions from Electric
Generation by 2030 (tons)
80,000,000
100,000,000
120,000,000
140,000,000
Reduction greater
than 27 statescombined.
Graph does not include Alaska and Hawaii because data was not available. Vermont is excluded because it is notcovered by EPA's rule. Sources: EPA Data File - 2012 Unit-Level Data Using the eGRID Methodology& Bloomberg, NewEnergy Finance analysis (for the rate-to-mass conversion on which percentages are based).
20,000,000
0
20,000,000
40,000,000
, ,
F
A
G
A
A
C
C
C
H
C
D
D
D
C
58
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
14/36
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Overview of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Limits
Impacts to Texas Coal Generation (Block 2)
xpectat ons egar ng exas enewa eGeneration (Block 3)
Going Forward
59
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
15/36
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
16/36
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
17/36
Texas Projected Retirements By 2020* (# ) . . C C /G
AE D (1) ** 138 138
B B (2) 2016 1195 1195
C C (1) 20182020 592 592
F (3) 20182020 1639 1639
G C (1) 20182020 466 466
H (3) 2016 (1); 20182020 (2) 1018 1018
D (2) 2016 B 870 870
C (2) ** 4 4
C (2) ** 460 460
2 2016 1130 1130
62
(3) ** 457 457 (1) 20202025 669 669
A (4) 20162018 (2); 20182020 (2) 2509 2509
(1) 20182020 723 723
(3) ** 200 200
(5) ** 1814 1814
(1) 2016 391 391 F (1) ** 420 420
1 (1) ** 286 286
(3) 2016 B (1); 2016 (2) 1584 1584
A 13,072 4 3,489 16,565
* Oklaunions projected retirement date begins in 2020 but may extend to 2025.** Retirement date yet to be determined.
Source: EPA IPM, Base Case Unit Retirements, 2020.
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
18/36
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
19/36
Arkansas Retirements By 2020
C C /G
H C 123 123
1,678 1,678
64
C 620 620
E . 670 670
B 1,659 1,659
A 4,007 0 743 4,750
Source: EPA IPM Assessment of Option 1 with Regional Compliance, 2020 Run Year
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
20/36
Louisiana Retirements By 2020
C C /G
B C 1 220 220
B C 2 1,756 1,756
B E C 486 422 908
C C C 46 46
D G H 130 130
D B 302 302
2 138 138
65
126 126 C 54 54
38 38
763 603 1,366
346 346
A 3,051 0 3,192 6,243
Source: EPA IPM Assessment of Option 1 with Regional Compliance, 2020 Run Year
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
21/36
Mississippi Retirements By 2020
C /G
B 1,176 1,176
D 177 177
G A 712 712H 29 29
706 706
35 8 43
73 73
66
D 360 360
D 1,020 1,020
19 19
33 33
A 2,086 69 2,193 4,348
* Mississippi is modeled to retire combined cycle generation at two units.Source: EPA IPM Assessment of Option 1 with Regional Compliance, 2020 Run Year
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
22/36
New Mexico Retirements By 2020 C C /G
C 186 186
815 815
A 815 0 186 1,001
67Source: EPA IPM Assessment of Option 1 with Regional Compliance, 2020 Run Year
C C /G
H 440 440
1,022 1,022
920 920 1,043 1,043
A 3,425 0 0 3,425
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
23/36
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Overview of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Limits Impacts to Texas Coal Generation (Block 2)
xpectat ons egar ng exas enewa eGeneration (Block 3)
Going Forward
68
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
24/36
EPAs Modeled Increases in Renewable
Electricity 2012 to 2030 BLOCK 3Texas 51,945,805 MWh
Pennsylvania 30,871,737 MWh
10,000,000 .
Modeled increases are in megawatt-hours (MWh) comparing 2012 data to EPAs projected 2030 target. The above
graphic does not include Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and South Dakota, states in which EPAs model anticipates reductionsin RE. Sources: EPA Data File, Goal Computation, Appendix 1; GHG Abatement Measures TSD.
New York 19,069,478 MWh
Florida -17,585,816 MWh
Ohio 12,036,972 MWh
Alabama 11,516,247 MWh
California 11,183,858 MWh
* Does not reflect 2020-2029
interim
budgets, whichpractically, requires a significantamount of the investments andchanges to be achieved by 2020.
69
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
25/36
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
80,000,000
90,000,000
100,000,000
EPAs Modeled Increases in Renewable Electricity(Top Ten Producers) 2012 to 2030 (MWh) BLOCK 3
EPA assumes the largestrenewable fleet - Texas - togrow an additional 153% (>
29 states combined)
Modeled increases are in megawatt-hours (MWh) comparing 2012 data to EPAs projected 2030 target. Texas is projected to go from
34,016,697 to 85,962,502 MWh in RE. From 2020 to 2030, EPAs model predicts that Texas will increase renewable electricitygeneration by 114.9%, while California is modeled to increase by 8%. Sources: EPA Data File, Goal Computation, Appendix 1; GHGAbatement Measures TSD.
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
2012 RE Increase in Re Decrease in RE
70
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
26/36
80
100
120
140
MWh
EPAs Modeled 2030 Texas Renewable Fleet v.Present Day International Solar/Wind Generation
Texas renewable fleet wouldbe larger than the present-day
wind and solar fleet of anyother country in the world!
2012
0
20
40
60
U.S. Texas China Germ. Spain India Italy Can. U.K. Fran. Denm.
Million
2012 2030
Present-day international generation data are from 2011, the most recent year of complete data. Present day Texas
renewable generation data are from 2012. Sources: EPA Data File, Goal Computation, Appendix 1; GHG AbatementMeasures TSD; EIA, International Energy Statistics, Renewables, 2011.
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
27/36
PRESENTATION OUTLINE Overview of Greenhouse Gas Rules
Texas Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Limits Impacts to Texas Coal Generation (Block 2)
xpectat ons egar ng exas enewa eGeneration (Block 3)
Going Forward
72
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
28/36
EPA Re-Engineering of EachStates Utility Fleet
EPA claims states have flexibility but the reality of mandatedstate budgets strictly limit options available to states.
Majority of the rules reductions come outside the fence by- - .
Many states/regions lack legal authority to accomplish the task.
SIP disapprovals & FIPs could result in unprecedented clashbetween EPA and states.
Assuming EPA has any authority to enforce a FIP under111(d), it clearly lacks authority to force any of the utility systemchanges contemplated in Blocks 2 through 4.
73
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
29/36
EPA Rule Impacts on
U.S. & Texas Electricity and Gas Costs
17.8
16.0
17.0
18.0
19.0
20.0
/
Residential Electricity Rate Increase - 2012 to 2020
I , : $29.4
(93% )
$13.1 (166% ).
48%
74
.
10.0
11.0
12.0
13.0
14.0
15.0
2012 2020
I .., : $189.3
(52% )
$106.5 (100% ).
29% 50%.
..
11.9
11.0
C
.
: EA C . . E A 2013; EA. , , , .
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
30/36
ALL PAIN, NO GAIN
EPA Rule ImpactsU.S. PAIN 2012 to 2020:EPA projected retirements of 121,000 MW of capacityby 2020.Total spending on electricity increases from $364 to$553 billion per year, a $189.3 billion (52%) increase.Total spending on gas increases from $107 to $213
billion per year, a $106.5 billion (100%) increase.Residential electric bills increase by 29%.Residential gas bills increase by 50%.
TEXAS PAIN 2012 to 2020:EPA projected retirements of 16,565 MW of capacityby 2020.
Modeled CO2 Reduction1.52 ppm
WORLD GAIN: 0.25% reduction in CO2 concentration (see pie
chart). Global temperature increase reduced by 0.016
F. Sea level rise reduced by 1/100th of an inch; less
than the thickness of 3 sheets of paper. Total US reductions by 2030 will be offset by
projected emissions during just 13 and 1/2 days inChina in 2030.
o a spen ng on e ec r c y ncreases rom . o$60.8 billion per year, a $29.4 billion (93%) increase.Total spending on gas increases from $7.9 to $20.9billion per year, a $13.1 billion (166%) increase.Residential electric bills increase by 48%.Residential gas bills increase by 75%.
75
Remaining CO2 Concentration598.48 ppm
GLOBAL CO2CONCENTRATION
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
31/36
ALL PAIN, NO GAIN
SOURCES
AI CE:
EA, C C , , 79 . 34,830, 2014.EA, , C , B C.
EA, , C , 1. EA C . E A 2013; EA. , , , ..
GAI CE:
.. EA, A: F 20172025 D G G E C A F E , A 2012. EA
C2.
CC, C C 2014: C C: C G FA C C.
EA, E , F 2014.
.. EA, A E 2014, ... EA, A, C C , , 2014.CC, C C 2013: B: C G F A C C, C 1 & 12. C
C (CC) C2 2050 450 600 .
76
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
32/36
Next on EPAs GHG Target List?(this chart is on EPAs Website)
Source:http://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgdata/reported/index.html
77
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
33/36
BSER Block 1 6 % efficiency gain for everything inside
the fence at a refinery that emits GHGs? BSER Block 2 Forced heavy-to-light crude or crude-to-
i m f k f l wi hin n m n r
THE MADNESS DOES NOT END HERE:
What Might EPAs 111(d) Rule Look Like
for Refiners (under consent decree)?
78
green completions for all domestic E&P crude sources? BSER Block 3 Forced funding of alternative fuel
(biofuels, EVs, etc) production to displace need for oil
refining (would likely go well beyond even worst-caseRenewable Fuels Standard projections).
BSER Block 4 - Demand-side reduction - A mass transit
funding or tightening of MPG standards on and off-road?
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
34/36
Will EPA Get Away With it?
Scalias Supreme Court Majority Opinion in UARGis a shot
across EPAs Bow:
EPAs interpretation is also unreasonable because it wouldr ng a ou anenormou an rans orma v expans on
in EPAs regulatory authority without clearcongressional authorization. When an agency claims todiscover in a long extant statute an unheralded power to
regulate a significant portion of the Americaneconomywe typically greet its announcement with ameasure of skepticism. We expect Congress to speakclearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of
vast economic and political significance. 79
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
35/36
EPA Sleight of Hand Use of Debated
PM2.5 Science to Sell GHG RuleThis week, we re unveiling theseproposed guidelines, which will cut down
on thecarbon pollution,[]In just the firstyear that these standards go into effect,up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100
heart attack will b avoided andthose numbers will go up from there.
-President Obama May 31, 2014
NAAQS supposed to be safe (with margin)
No-threshold linear regression to 0 model
Contrast between PR statements & rule. 80
8/11/2019 Mike Nasi Presentation
36/36
Questions?
Mike Nasi
Jackson Walker L.L.P.mnasi@jw.com512.236.2216