Regulation Database – Clean Power Plan
Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units
President Obama and EPA announced the final Clean Power Plan rule on August 3, 2015. The rule aims to reduce CO2 emissions from existing power plants by 30% below 2005 levels by 2030. To accomplish this, the rule establishes CO2 emission performance rates representing the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for fossil fuel-fired electric utility steam generating units and stationary combustion turbines within each state. States have the flexibility to reach these targets individually or at the regional scale, and to translate the rate-based targets into mass-based targets for compliance purposes. The rule also establishes guidelines for the development, submittal and implementation of state plans to achieve the CO2 emission performance rates.
- Final Rule (Oct. 23, 2015)
- Proposed Rule (June 18, 2014)
- Notice of Data Availability (Oct. 30, 2014)
Associated Rule Proposals:
- Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Electric Utility Generating Units Constructed on or Before January 8, 2014; Model Trading Rules; Amendments to Framework Regulations, 80 Fed. Reg. 64966 (Oct. 23, 2015) [withdrawn]: This rule would have established two types of federal implementation plans that could take effect where states failed to submit satisfactory plans for Clean Power Plan compliance – a rate-based emission trading program and a mass-based emission trading program. Both types of plans were also presented as model trading rules that states could adopt or tailor for implementation within their energy sector. The rule would have thus created a clear pathway for compliance with the Clean Power Plan.
- Clean Energy Incentive Program Design Details, 81 Fed. Reg. 42940 (June 30, 2016) [withdrawn]: This Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP) was originally established in the Clean Power Plan final rule to provide a mechanism whereby states could incentivize early investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects in low-income communities (and receive credit for these investments in their compliance plans). This rule would have established parameters for CEIP participation and implementation. For example, it would have established limits on the number of allowances or emission rate credits (ERCs) that could be allocated or issued by a state to a CEIP-eligible project per MWh generated or saved.
|Litigation: Industry groups and states immediately challenged the final rule in West Virginia v. EPA, No.15-1363 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In February 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan pending review in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2017, State opponents of the EPA’s Clean Power Plan filed a petition for a new lawsuit, asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA’s denial of requests for reconsideration of the rule (which were filed after the rule was finalized but before the Supreme Court stayed its implementation).|
|Deregulatory Actions: On March 28, 2017, President Trump issued an executive order directing EPA to review the Clean Power Plan and to rescind or rewrite the rule as needed to promote the President’s goals of energy independence and economic growth. EPA immediately submitted a request to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to hold the case in abeyance pending EPA’s reconsideration of the rule. On April 4, 2017, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register announcing that it is reviewing and, if appropriate will initiate proceedings to suspend, revise or rescind the rule.
The executive order also directed EPA to review and rescind or re-write the proposed rule establishing federal implementation plans and model trading rules. On April 3, 2017, EPA officially withdrew that rule proposal as well as the rule proposal establishing details for the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP).
|Effects of Staying and Possibly Rescinding the Plan: If implemented, the Clean Power Plan would reduce carbon pollution from the power sector by 32% in 2030, amounting to 870 million tons less carbon pollution, the equivalent of taking 166 million cars off the road for a year. Climate and public health benefits would reach between $34 and $54 billion annually by 2030 and reduced emissions of toxic air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide would have resulted in the prevention of over 1,500 premature deaths annually. Learn more>>|
Additional Clean Power Plan Resources
- Overview of the Clean Power Plan: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants
- Clean Power Plan: Key Changes and Improvements
- By the Numbers: Cutting Carbon Pollution from Power Plants
- Benefits of a Cleaner, More Efficient Power Sector
- Components of the Clean Power Plan: Setting State Goals to Cut Carbon Pollution
- The Role of States: States Decide How to Meet Their Goal
- Built on a Solid Legal and Scientific Foundation
- Clean Energy Now and in the Future
- Clean Energy Incentive Program
- Energy Efficiency in the Clean Power Plan
- Keeping Energy Affordable and Reliable
Technical Support Documents:
- Federal Plan Affected EGU Technical Support Document (Aug. 2015)
- Technical Support Document: Allowance Allocation (Aug. 2015)
- Technical Support Document: Gas Shift Emission Rate Credit (GS-ERC) (Aug. 2015)
- Technical Support Document: Renewable Energy (RE) Set-aside (Aug. 2015)
- Technical Support Document: Alternative Compliance Pathway for Units that Agree to Retire Before a Certain Date (Aug. 2015)
- Technical Support Document: GHG Abatement Measures (June 2014)
Resources for States:
- Clean Power Plan – Technical Summary for States
- Clean Power Plan – State and Tribal Rate and Mass Goals
- Clean Power Plan State Goal Visualizer
- State Plan Decision Tree
- Draft Evaluation Measurement and Verification (EM&V) Guidance for Demand-Side Energy Efficiency
- Allowable Scope of Geographic Eligibility for Emission Rate Credits (ERCs) Under a Rate-Based Approach
- An Economic Assessment of the Supreme Court’s Stay of the Clean Power Plan and Implications for the Future (Resources for the Future 2016)