Comments on: Understanding State Goals under the Clean Power Plan http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/ The EPA Blog Mon, 14 Dec 2015 16:24:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.1 By: steam wallet hack no download http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-48911 Tue, 26 May 2015 17:09:15 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-48911 Keep on working, great job!

]]>
By: Kimberly Jones, NCUC Staff http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28447 Wed, 18 Jun 2014 20:08:05 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28447 Are power plants that burn wood covered by the proposed regulations? If not, could a state plan include the burning of additional wood to make electricity?

]]>
By: Julie Meyer http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28446 Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:28:32 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28446 It’s mentioned in Block 3 of the state goal computation, but there is a simpler way to think about it. Emissions estimates are divided by total generation. If generation increases but emissions stay the same, your emission rate will go down. Since nuclear is a low/zero-emitting source, adding more capacity or increasing generation will lower emission rates and help the state achieve their goal.

]]>
By: Julie Meyer http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28445 Tue, 17 Jun 2014 17:24:54 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28445 A federal plan will be implemented in lieu of a state plan

]]>
By: Martha Phillips http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28444 Tue, 17 Jun 2014 13:41:50 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28444 I am trying to understand the pros and cons of the two options. Option One has higher deployment of the four “building blocks” with a 2030 deadline. Option Two has lower deployment of the four bldg blks and a 2025 deadline. States have different goals depending on which option they choose to use.

So what are the arguments for and against Options One and Two? How would states/regions view them? Which is most desirable (according to what criteria)? Seems like Option One would reduce CO2 emissions more than Option Two.

Has anyone written about this?

]]>
By: Ted McGovern http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28443 Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:35:29 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28443 Recent court decisions have gone EPA’s way with the judges refusing to question the “science” behind EPA rule-makings and EPA’s procedure for setting these goals is the result. Consider the bait and switch approach for describing the expected reductions that claim a 30% reduction from 2005. That sounds good but everyone associated with regulatory analysis immediately assumed that meant that the baseline for determining how the program would determine reductions would also be 2005.

Oh no, this blog says ”EPA is not setting goals based on percentage reductions against a baseline year”. Instead, “the proposed state goals are based on a consistent national formula and calculated using specific information about the state or its region’s individual power profile”.

Hopefully even the courts will call out EPA on this charade. Even a formula has input data and whatever you call it the choice of that input data makes a difference. If you put in 2005 data, then the results will be different than using the 2012 data.

In the past EPA has used multi-year periods to establish the data used in their formula aka the baseline, but given free rein to do whatever by the courts they took the easy way out. Their rationale for 2012 was that it “represented the most recent year for which complete data were available at the time of the analysis.” Forget that they used unpublished data on a unit level rather than facility level like the rest of the EGRID data set. Forget using an average over a multiyear period because they “determined that there would be little variation in results compared to a 2012 base year data set due to the rate-based nature of the goal.” They took the easy way out and just did the analysis for one year.

The fact of the matter is that there are significant differences between 2005 and 2012. Most notably by the natural gas revolution that created an economic advantage for natural gas over coal and changed the CO2 emissions profile. One should expect that state-level RPS and EE/EC programs would have also changed the generation mix between 2005 and 2012. Finally the States in RGGI had a program in place to change their CO2 emissions profile that would change these parameters.

]]>
By: Z FARIDI http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28442 Mon, 09 Jun 2014 19:13:38 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28442 A: What is correct from following?
1. In 2030, total amount of Carbon emission will be 30% less than 2005 level
2. In 2030, Carbon intensity will be 30% less than 2005 levels.

B: Will the installation of new coal fired power plants be allowed from now onward?

]]>
By: Carl Childers http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28441 Sun, 08 Jun 2014 00:10:26 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28441 Nuclear IS mentioned elsewhere in the accompanying EPA documents, as one means of accomplishing the needed emissions reductions. I have only started to read the information on this site minutes ago, so I don’t know how nuclear generation is quantitatively treated. It seems that it’s not discouraged, though.

]]>
By: Steve Barney http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28440 Sat, 07 Jun 2014 20:57:38 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28440 What is the “consistent national formula” which was used to calulate each of the proposed state GHG emissions goals?

]]>
By: Tom Butz http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2014/06/understanding-state-goals-under-the-clean-power-plan/#comment-28439 Fri, 06 Jun 2014 22:41:10 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/epaconnect/?p=2126#comment-28439 I don’t understand why the state goals are not expressed in tons/year. Expressing the goals in tons/MWh is confusing because it doesn’t accurately show the amount of impact from the change of dispatch of the system. I don’t believe the 4-6% efficiency improvements is something that is feasible.

]]>