John S. Lyons, Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet.

Report
1
GREENHOUSE GAS POLICY
IMPLICATIONS FOR
KENTUCKY’S ENERGY FUTURE
Presented by
John S. Lyons
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet
March 13, 2014
2
Section 111(d) – Existing Sources
• Preceded by issuance of an NSPS under
111(b) for new sources
• Regulatory Mechanism – 40 CFR 60 Subpart
B
• Why Subpart B? – 60.22(d)(1) – Welfare
pollutant
• EPA issues guideline document
• States submit “SIP” like plan
• If state fails to submit or EPA disapproves,
then EPA will issue a federal plan
3
Burning Questions
• What are “meaningful carbon reductions”?
• Will EPA set a reduction target expressed as an
emission rate by unit and fuel type or something
more broad?
• Does the definition of stationary source allow a
“beyond the fence line” approach?
• What is Best System of Emission Reduction?
• How will cost of reduction be calculated?
• What is adequately demonstrated?
• What is remaining useful life?
4
Kentucky’s 2012 Electricity Generation
2%
2.50%
0.50%
3%
92%
Coal
Natural Gas
Petro
Hydro
Other
5
Electricity Intensity by State, 2012
Rank
State
Electricity
Intensity
kWh of
Electricity
Consumption per
Real GDP
1
Kentucky
Mississippi
Alabama
West Virginia
South Carolina
Wyoming
Arkansas
Idaho
Oklahoma
Indiana
Tennessee
Louisiana
Montana
Missouri
North Dakota
Georgia
Nebraska
Iowa
Ohio
New Mexico
Kansas
Florida
North Carolina
Arizona
South Dakota
Wisconsin
0.541
0.503
0.496
0.468
0.467
0.465
0.449
0.424
0.386
0.368
0.368
0.366
0.359
0.336
0.334
0.320
0.318
0.316
0.314
0.304
0.304
0.296
0.296
0.296
0.294
0.277
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
6
Rank
State
Electricity Intensity
kWh of Electricity Consumption per Real
GDP
27
Nevada
Texas
Michigan
Washington
Virginia
Pennsylvania
United States
Oregon
Minnesota
Utah
Maine
Illinois
Vermont
Colorado
Maryland
Delaware
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
New Jersey
Massachusetts
Hawaii
California
Connecticut
Alaska
New York
District of Columbia
0.277
0.274
0.274
0.260
0.259
0.253
0.249
0.247
0.240
0.240
0.227
0.216
0.212
0.207
0.205
0.185
0.177
0.159
0.157
0.142
0.140
0.136
0.135
0.130
0.124
0.108
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
7
KY CO
Reductions
2 Trends and Anticipated
Framework
Objectives
120.0
• Utilize mass emission reductions as the primary
Million Tons of CO2
100.0
mechanism
for addressing short term (15 years) GHG
reductions.
80.0
• Ensure that the fossil fueled electricity generating sector
has
60.0 the time and resources necessary to transition to a
cleaner fleet as the market dictates.
CO2 Emissions
40.0
• Provide
that the fossil fueled electricity generating sector
has the flexibility to choose the least cost method of
20.0
achieving reductions.
• Encourage
diversity for Kentucky’s electricity generation
0.0
fleet.2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029
Year
8
Kentucky’s Current and Future Estimates of Fossil
Fleet CO2 Mass Emission Reductions
Million Tons of CO2
Emission data from
CAMD Acid Rain
Database
% Reduction from
2005
2005
2012
Scenario #1*
2020
Scenario #2*
2025
100
93
80
72
7%
20%
27%
Scenario #3**
2030
62
38%
9
EEC 111 (d) Whitepaper
• Issued on October 22, 2013
• Focuses on Kentucky’s electricity intensive
manufacturing sector
• Discusses a potential framework with
various compliance options
• Compares two divergent approaches of an
emissions reduction program
• Promotes maximum flexibility afforded
under 111(d)
10
Framework Objectives
• Utilize a mass emissions reduction vs. rate-
based standard
• Ensure EGUs have time to transition to a
cleaner fleet
• Provide that the EGU sector has flexibility
to choose a least-cost option
• Encourage diversity in Kentucky’s fleet
11
Possible Compliance Options
• Demand-side Management (DSM)
• Supply-side Efficiency
• Transmission Upgrades
• Renewable Energy
• CCS Technology
• Fuel Switching
• Offsets
• Market-based Programs
12
EEC Paper on Energy Outlook Under
Carbon Constraints
• Issued on December 16, 2013
• Companion paper to the 111(d) white paper
• Study initiated in early June 2013
• Information obtained from all Kentucky Investor
Owned Utilities
• Employs a custom-built dispatch model
• Four policy options (BAU, Flexible Portfolio,
Balanced Portfolio, Coal Portfolio) run with high
and low NG prices
13
Modeling Reference Case
14
Our Aging Coal-fired Generation
15
Kentucky’s 2020 Projected Electricity
Generation (w/o any GHG regulations)
2.50% 0.50%
19%
Coal
Natural Gas
Hydro
Biomass
78%
16
Conclusions
Discussions on 111(d) have evolved since the white
paper was issued.
EEC has not conceded any legal positions on the extent
of EPA’s authority under 111(d).
Kentucky’s energy profile will change considerably even
without GHG regulations.
EEC’s national involvement in the stakeholder process
is crucial to protecting Kentucky’s manufacturing jobs.
Environmental regulations and market forces are
forcing diversity to Kentucky’s energy profile.
17
Thank You
John S. Lyons
Assistant Secretary for Climate Policy
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet
[email protected]
502-564-3350
www.eec.ky.gov

similar documents