Today, the International Energy Agency released World Energy Outlook 2015, an annual publication that provides updated projections on the evolution of the global energy system and insights into what the future holds for carbon emissions and the various fuel sectors (e.g. fossil fuels, renewables, etc.).
There is a charge for the full report, but the executive summary may be accessed for free.
UPDATED 08.30.2016 with additional petitions for review of EPA’s denial of reconsideration.
UPDATED 02.04.2016 with additional petitioners and parties.
To date, four petitions (listed below) have been filed in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of EPA’s carbon emission standards for new, modified, and reconstructed units (also referred to as the New Source Performance Standard or NSPS). On November 2, the court issued an order consolidating the petitions under lead Case No. 15-1381, State of North Dakota v. EPA.
Although the NSPS petitions have been consolidated under a separate lead docket from the petitions seeking review of the Clean Power Plan, the rulemakings, and as a result the petitions for review, are closely intertwined. The reason is this: EPA promulgated both the NSPS and CPP under its Section 111 Clean Air Act authority. Section 111 of the Clean Air Act directs EPA to first make an endangerment finding (i.e. a finding that a particular stationary source of pollution “causes, or contributes significantly to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(A)), then promulgate regulations for new sources (42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(1)(B)), and finally promulgate a performance standard for existing sources (42 U.S.C. § 7411(d)).
Because the NSPS is the “predicate” rulemaking to the CPP, the court’s decision on the merits in North Dakota v. EPA could affect the outcome of West Virginia v. EPA. This will especially be true if the North Dakota court rules on EPA’s endangerment finding or EPA’s legal authority to promulgate the NSPS. Stay tuned as the drama continues.
More information on the parties that have filed petitions, motions for stay, and motions to intervene in West Virginia v. EPA is available here.
Petitions for Review of the NSPS (and petitions for review of EPA’s denial of reconsideration):
| Party(ies) | Case No. |
| (LEAD CASE) State of North Dakota | 15-1381 |
| Murray Energy Corporation | 15-1396 (16-1218) |
| Energy & Environment Legal Institute | 15-1397 (16-1227) |
| The States of West Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming; the Commonwealth of Kentucky; the Attorney General for the State of Michigan; the State of Arizona Corporation Commission, and the Departments of Environmental Quality of the states of Louisiana and North Carolina | 15-1399 (16-1220) |
| International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, AFL-CIO | 15-1434 |
| Peabody Energy Corporation | 15-1438 |
| Utility Air Regulatory Group and American Public Power Association | 15-1448 (16-1221) |
| Indiana Utility Group | 15-1458 |
| National Mining Association | 15-1456 |
| United Mine Workers of American, AFL-CIO | 15-1463 |
| Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Southern Power Company | 15-1468 |
| Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, National Association of Manufacturers, American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers, National Federation of Independent Business, American Chemistry Council, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, American Foundry Society, American Forest & Paper Association, American Iron & Steel Institute, American Wood Council, Brick Industry Association, Electricity Consumers Resource Council, Lignite Energy Council, National Lime Association, National Oilseed Processors Association, and Portland Cement Association | 15-1469 |
| Biogenic CO2 Coalition | 15-1480 |
| American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity | 15-1481 |
| Luminant Generation Company, LLC, Oak Grove Management Company, LLC, Big Brown Power Company, LLC, Sandow Power Company, LLC, Big Brown Lignite Company, LLC, Luminant Mining Company, LLC, and Luminant Big Brown Mining Company, LLC | 15-1482 |
| National Rural Electric Cooperative Association; Basin Electric Power Cooperative; East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Inc.; Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc.; Minnkota Power Cooperative, Inc.; Sunflower Electric Power Corporation; and Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc. | 15-1484 |
Intervenors in Support of Respondent-EPA in 15-1381 et al.:
American Lung Association
Calpine Corporation
Center for Biological Diversity
City of Austin d/b/a Austin Energy
City of Los Angeles
City of New York
City of Seattle
Clean Air Council
Clean Wisconsin
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Commonwealth of Virginia
Conservation Law Foundation
District of Columbia
Environmental Defense Fund
Golden Spread Electric Cooperative, Inc.
National Grid Generation, LLC
Natural Resources Defense Council
New York Power Authority
Nextera Energy, Inc.
Ohio Environmental Council
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sierra Club
State of California
State of Connecticut
State of Delaware
State of Hawaii
State of Illinois
State of Iowa
State of Maine
State of Maryland
State of Minnesota
State of New Hampshire
State of New Mexico
State of New York
State of Oregon
State of Rhode Island
State of Vermont
State of Washington
Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, Inc.
Intervenors in Support of Petitioners in 15-1381 et al.:
Gulf Coast Lignite Coalition
Lignite Energy Council
In the New Source Performance Standards for new power plants, EPA finalized a standard for new coal units based on partial carbon capture and storage (CCS) as the best system of emission reduction (BSER). EPA had proposed integrated gasification combined cycle with partial CCS as the BSER, but finalized highly efficient supercritical pulverized coal with partial CCS instead, yielding a less stringent standard. EPA detailed the state of CCS development through a variety technologies and industries.
Recently Brookings Energy Security and Climate Initiative released a report on CCS, Fostering Low Carbon Energy: Next Generation Policy to Commercialize CCS in the United States. This report concludes that current policy does not adequately address the risks and status of CCS technology and suggests policy changes to promote CCS development and commercialization.
In September, PJM asked the Organization of PJM States, Inc. (OPSI) for feedback as it considered how to approach modeling and analysis of the final CPP. PJM stated that it planned to use the same modeling philosophy as was used in PJM’s analysis of the proposed rule and noted a few additional points related to the final rule, including the removal of energy efficiency, the shorter compliance period, and refinements related to mass-based approaches.
Recently, OPSI provided input on PJM’s preliminary plans for modeling economic impacts associated with the final CPP. In this letter OPSI made recommendations including: (1) incorporate the continued participation of Maryland and Delaware in RGGI as part of the business as usual case; (2) provide modeling results for 2023, 2026, 2028, and 2030; (3) use updated forecasts for fuel prices; (4) model at least three sensitivities involving energy efficiency; and (4) run scenarios to compare rate-based to mass-based approaches, using various assumptions.
In November 2014, PJM’s preliminary analysis of the proposed CPP provided information about potential effects on PJM’s energy market. In March 2015, PJM released its Economic Analysis of the EPA Clean Power Plan Proposal. In this report, PJM looked at 17 distinct scenarios with and without the CPP. The analysis suggested that retirements would likely occur gradually, electricity production costs would increase, the price of natural gas would likely be the main driver of associated costs, and regional compliance options would likely cost less than state-by-state options. PJM also released an economic analysis with state-level detail. And in July, PJM released its Reliability Scenario Studies Related to the Proposed Clean Power Plan.
Stakeholder Calls on the Clean Energy Incentive Program
Through the Clean Energy Incentive Program (CEIP), EPA hopes to incentivize early investments in renewable energy and demand-side energy efficiency. EPA is planning to hold a series of stakeholder calls [link eliminated] to discuss the CEIP:
Additionally, EPA has opened a non-regulatory docket to collect information about the CEIP, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0734, accessible through regulations.gov. EPA is accepting comments through December 15, 2015. EPA has a list of questions for the stakeholder calls that can also be used to guide comments submitted to the CEIP docket.