What Does A Carbon Constrained Economy Look Like? Anda Ray VP, Environment VP, Global Strategy & External Relations Chief Sustainability Officer
Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission December 17, 2015 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Today’s Topics The Road to and from Paris – International Electric Sector’s Role in Economy-wide Emission Reduction Clean Power Plan - Recap
2 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
International Agreements Affect Domestic Climate Policies: Example – the US IPCC (2007)
G8 Leaders (2009)
Global CO2 reductions in 2050 of 50-85% consistent with warming of 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius Reduce G8 emissions 80% or more by 2050 Lower global emissions 50% to limit global warming to 2˚C
U.S. Goal (2009-2010)
Reduce emissions by ~80% by 2050 relative to 2005 (Copenhagen Accord; U.S. Legislative proposals; U.S. Climate Action Plan)
U.S./China Statement (2014)
U.S. – reduce emissions 26%-28% in 2025 relative to 2005. China – achieve peaking of CO2 emissions by 2030.
U.S. Regulations (2013, 2015)
U.S. Climate Action Plan Clean Power Plan 32% 2030
3 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CO2 Emissions by G20 Countries (2010)
1. China 2. U.S.
(remainder of world)
3. E.U.
CHINA
E.U. INDIA U.S. RUSSIA
Source: G20 Watch site, using World Bank data (g20watch.edu.au) 4 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
4. India 5. Russia
COP-21 Country Emissions Reduction Pledges: What Reductions Will These Pledges Yield? Some Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) pledges Region
Pledge Target year Economy-wide Kyoto GHGs 26-28% USA 2025 below 2005 Economy-wide Kyoto GHGs 40% below EU 2030 1990 China Peak in total CO2 2030 Economy-wide Kyoto GHGs & Black Mexico 2030 Carbon 25% below BAU Economy-wide Kyoto GHGs 25-30% Russia 2030 below 1990 Gabon CO2+CH4+N2O 50% below BAU 2025 Economy-wide Kyoto GHGs 40% below Norway 2030 1990 Economy-wide Kyoto GHGs 50% below Switzerland 2030 1990 5 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through 2050 (MERGE Model, No GHG Policy, Energy and Non-Energy Emissions) 90
2050 ~ 82 Billion Tons 80
Other Countries
70
2030 ~ 62 Billion Tons
India
Billion Tons CO2-e
60 50
China 40 30
Other G20 20
EU 10 0 1990
US 2000
2010
2020
2030
6 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2040
2050
What do the INDCs Together Mean for Global Emissions? 70
Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) Pledges for 2030 Timeframe 2030 ~ 62 Billion Tons
60
50
Billion Tons CO2-e
Reductions
USA by Region EU Other G20 China (lowest peak) 2030 ~ 47 Billion Tons
40
(~24% reduction)
India and other countries
30
World Emissions World BAU
20
10
0 1990
China with lowest peak (Our most optimistic assumption for China) 2000
2010
2020
7 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2030
Global Emissions with INDCs and “Optimistic” Extensions to 2050 90
80
USA 2030 ~ 62 Billion Tons
70
EU Other G20
Billion Tons CO2-e
60
China (more abatement) 50
India (and other 40
developing - peak by 2040)
2030 ~ 47 Billion Tons
2030 ~ 38 Billion Tons
World Emissions
30
World BAU
20
G7 2050 Goal for Global Emissions
10 0 1990 8
Reductions by Region
(Need 25 Billion Tons) 2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
MERGE model results
© 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2050
187 Nations Adopt Climate Agreement At COP21 Talks In Paris – December 12, 2015
(left to right) UN climate chief Christiana Figueres; UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon; French Foreign Minister and president of the COP21 meetings Laurent Fabius; French President Francois Hollande, 9 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Climate Change: “Urgent” … “Threat”
“[The nations]… recognizing that climate change represents an urgent and potentially irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires the widest possible cooperation by all countries."
10 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Essential Elements of the Paris Climate Agreements “Should” not “Shall” 1. Each Country/Party submits “Nationally Determined Contributions” & Measures 2. “Common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities” (Best Effort) 3. Update NDCs at common 5-year intervals 4. Establish a central project crediting mechanism (Kyoto Protocol) 5. Establish a “Transparency and Accountability” framework
6. 5-year “Stocktaking” – progress on mitigation, adaptation and finance 7. Reduce Climate “vulnerability” and increase Climate “resiliency” 8. Establish a mechanism for “loss and damage” assessment (Warsaw Int’l mechanism) 9. Developed countries committed to $100 billion/year by 2020 (public & private funds)
11 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction (GHG) Pledge is an Economy-wide Reduction of 28% by 2025; 8 Longer-term Goal of 80% by 2050 7 CH4, N20, and F-gases
Net GHG (incl sinks)
Billion tons CO2 eq.
6 5
Economy 28% target
4 Non-ELECTRIC SECTOR CO2
3 Economy 80% target
2 Clean Power Plan 32% target
1 ELECTRIC SECTOR CO2
0 2010
2015
nominal Electric Sector 80% target
2020
2025
2030
2035
Source: US-REGEN data; Energy Modeling Forum 24 12 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2040
2045
2050
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets: What 8 Role will the Electric Sector Play in Economy Reductions? 7 CH4, N20, and F-gases
Net GHG (incl sinks)
Billion tons CO2 eq.
6 5
Economy 28% target
OTHER SECTORS OF THE ECONOMY MUST REDUCE
4 Non-ELECTRIC SECTOR CO2
3 Economy 80% target
2 1
Electric Sector
ELECTRIC SECTOR CO2
0 2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Rest of economy must make dramatic reductions – HOW? 13
Source: US-REGEN data; Energy Modeling Forum 24 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Electric Sector Comprised 31% of US GHG Emissions in 2013
Agriculture 27% Electricity 31%
US Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Source (2013)
Industry 21%
3
Residential & Commercial 12%
Transportation 27%
Source: USEPA 2013 * Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry in the United States is a net sink and offsets approximately 13% of these greenhouse gas emissions 14 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Results -- Lower GHG Scenario (assumes $20/MTons of CO2 in 2021, rising at 5%/year)
Electrification White Paper March 2016
Electricity Sector Electric Transportation Electrifiable Transportation
Overall emissions decline substantially – electrification, along with transportation efficiency improvements, result in a 70% reduction in GHG emissions for these two sectors between 2015 and 2050 15 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Lots of Other Opportunities for Electrification Residential Commercial
Air-source/ground-source heat pumps Variable capacity ducted heat pumps Variable refrigerant flow heat pumps Variable capacity rooftop heat pumps Rooftop air-source heat pumps Heat pump pool dehumidification & heating Forklifts (comm & ind applications)
Industrial
Truck stop electrification Commercial food service equipment Infrared curing and drying UV curing Induction surface treatment Resistance heating Channel and coreless induction furnaces Pipeline compression Electric resistance (direct) furnaces C&I heat recovery heat pumps Robotic milking Automatic feed pusher Pumps
16 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Electrification Reduces Future GHG Emissions
9
100%
9
90%
8
90%
8
80%
7
80%
7
6
60%
5
50% 4
40%
3
30% 20%
2
10%
1
0% 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Electricity
All Other
0
70%
Final Energy (%)
Final Energy (%)
70%
Net GHG Emissions (GtCO2eq/yr)
100%
6
60%
5
50% 4
40%
3
30% 20%
2
10%
1
0% 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050
GHG
17 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Electricity
All Other
GHG
0
Net GHG Emissions (GtCO2eq/yr)
80% GHG Mitigation (No Banking)
Reference
What Is the Outlook for Decarbonizing the Electric Sector?
Integrating Renewables
Carbon Capture and Storage
Nuclear Generation
End-to-End Efficiency
18 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Roles of Nuclear and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) in Decarbonization – circa 2008
2008 In 2008 Modeling was bullish on the roles of nuclear and CCS What has changed? – – – – – –
Load growth slowed dramatically >$10/MMBtu gas unlikely EPA limits on coal Nuclear cost increased CCS cost increased Renewable costs plummeted
19 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Roles of Nuclear and CCS in Decarbonization – circa 2015 Story is much more nuanced as we examine a range of scenarios: – Large value to maintain existing nuclear
One 80% Reduction Scenario 7,000
6,000
(Optimistic renewable and transmission, low gas price, new nuclear limits, existing nuclear to Sol 80 years, etc.) Ge
Bio
– Large value for new nuclear as GHG targets tighten
Wi
5,000
Solar
Geothermal
Hyd
Biomass
Nu
4,000
Nu
TWh
– Continued use of fossil requires CCS
2015
Ga
Ga
3,000
Wind
– Can do without nuclear or CCS, but VERY expensive 1,000 to do without both 2,000
0 2010
Ne
Ne
Hydro
Gas
CCS
Nuclear
Env
Exi
Coal 2015
Sce
Gas w/ CCS 2020
2025
20 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Large Value in Extending Existing Nuclear Licenses in the US Capacity Gain – 80GW in 2050 Remaining Nuclear Generation Capacity by License Limit
120
(GW) Generation Capacity Capacity Generation (GW) Capacity (GW) Generation
100 8080
80
80-Year 6060
60
800 700 700 700 600 600 600 500 500 500
80GW of Nuclear Nuclear
300 300 300
60-Year
or ~ 240GW 60-Year
of NonHydro Renewables?
400 400 400
Non-Hydro Renewable
200 200
2020 20
100 100
00 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 2065 2070 2070 2075 2015 2020 2020 2025 2025 2030 2030 2035 2035 2040 2040 2045 2045 2050 2050 2055 2055 2060 2060 2065 2075 2015 80-year 60-year 80-year 60-year
0
Generation Expected to be Lost to Nuclear Retirements
(TWh)
100 100
40 40 40
900
900
900 800 800 Generation Annual (TWh) Generation Annual (TWh) Generation Annual Lost Lost (TWh) Generation Annual (GW) Capacity Generation
120 120
Energy Gain – 700 TWh in 2050
80-Year
Annual Generation Lost
000 2015 2025 2050 206020602065 2075 2015 2020 20252035 2030 2040 2045 2050 2015 2020 2020 2025 2030 2030 20352040 20402045 20452035 20502055 2055 206520702070 2075 80-year 60-year 80-year 60-year
Note: Assumes 92% capacity factor for nuclear fleet
> $100 billion present value savings in an 80% 2050 GHG Reduction Scenario 21 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Recap – Where We’ve Been So Far Climate issue is global and here for the long haul – COP21 in Paris was a pivotal event
Electrification is a key element of achieving 80% economy-wide reductions – Also a near-term opportunity
Integrating renewables and demand-side technologies is essential – Energy efficiency gains are critical
New nuclear and CCS are extremely valuable options – Also critical to maintain and relicense the current nuclear fleet
22 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
CPP
We’ve Seen That Carbon Reduction is more than the Clean Power Plan 23 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
How Does the CPP fit in meeting U.S. Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) Commitments at COP-21 (26-28% reduction in CO2 2030 vs. 2005)? 3.0
U.S. Electric Sector Emissions
Billion metric tonnes CO2
2.5 2.0 1.5
S1-EEA Reference S11-CPP Mass All Units
1.0
S12-Economy CO2 -26% S13-Economy CO2 -80%
0.5
0.0 2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
-0.5 -1.0
Least cost path to a 26% reduction in U.S. emissions vs. 2005 has the electric sector emissions falling by 49% or more by 2030. By comparison, the CPP is expected to achieve ~30% reduction by 2030. 24 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPA’s Schedule
25 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPA’s FINAL Proposal Has Varying State Impacts % CO2 Reductions by State in 2030 (from 2005) WA 65% MT 9%
ND 45%
MN 22% VT
OR 29%
MA 65%
ID -9%
SD 53%
WI 38%
WY 40%
CO 19%
CA 5%
KS 7%
AZ -1%
≤ 0% 1% - 25%
NM 35%
NY 59%
MI 48% NE -37%
NV 68% UT 5%
ME 34% NH 46%
OK 46%
TX 33%
RI 26%
IA 39%
PA 42% OH 30% NJ 36% IL 54% MD 60% IN 33% WV 15% DE 71% VA 54% KY 46% MO 14%
AR 12%
TN 38%
CT 46%
NC 57%
SC 24% GA 42% MS 16% AL 50% Source: EPA Rate_Based IPM Results, EIA
LA 54%
FL 22%
26% - 50% > 50%
Wide range in variation, but reduced from variation in Proposed Rule 26 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Four Main Compliance Pathways (Targets)
Subcategory Rates
Steam units target of 1305 lb/MWh, NGCC units target of 771 lb/MWh (2030)
Rate State Rate
Steam and NGCC units target equal to the state rate
Cap Existing and New Units
Existing and New Steam and NGCC units emit less than the state mass target + the new source complement target
Cap Existing Units Only
Existing Steam and NGCC units emit less than the state mass target
State X
Mass
27 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Trading Opportunities Under the Four Main Compliance Pathways FIP Subcategory Rates Rate
Can trade ERCs with any other Subcategory Rate state
Can create ERCs from RE/EE/NUC/T&D measures in any rate-based state State Rate
Can trade ERCs with another State Rate state in the same compliance plan
State X Cap Existing and New Units
Mass
FIP
Can trade allowances with any other Mass-Based State
Cap Existing Units Only
28 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
How to Comply: Mass
Mass compliance means each units’ annual emissions must be under its total allowance for the year Compliance options include – Reduce generation from the unit, until total emissions are less than total allowances – Convert to gas, retrofit to CCS, or other unit level improvements to reduce emissions from the unit – Purchase additional allowances from other units in-state, or from out of state [only from mass-based states]
Allowances are denominated in short tons CO2 The mass-FIP suggests that allowances be allocated according to average historical generation from 2010-2012 29 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
How to Comply: Rate
Rate compliance means each unit’s adjusted emissions rate must be at or under the standard 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝐴𝐸𝑅) =
𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝐸𝑚𝑖𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 (𝑙𝑏𝑠) 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡 𝑀𝑊ℎ + 𝐸𝑅𝐶 𝑀𝑊ℎ
Where ERC = Emission Rate Credits (in MWh) E.g. Suppose a coal unit produces 1 MWh with 2000lb CO2. 𝐵𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝐴𝐸𝑅 =
2000𝑙𝑏𝑠 = 2000 > 1305 1 𝑀𝑊ℎ + 0𝐸𝑅𝐶𝑠
What are the options for getting the adjusted emissions rate down to the 1305lb/MWh target? – Lower the unit’s emissions directly; OR – Purchase or create ERCs 30 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
How to Comply: Rate
EXAMPLE
Option 1: Lower unit emissions to 1305 lb/MWh or less – i.e. convert to gas or retrofit to CCS. Assume retrofit to 50% CCS. 𝐴𝐸𝑅 =
1000𝑙𝑏𝑠 = 1000 < 1305 1 𝑀𝑊ℎ + 0𝐸𝑅𝐶𝑠
– In this case, the unit is now over-complying and will generate Emission Reduction Credits (ERCs) that it can sell
Option 2: Purchase or create ERCs – e.g. Build renewables, or buy ERCs from renewable generators 𝐴𝐸𝑅 =
2000𝑙𝑏𝑠 = 1305 1 𝑀𝑊ℎ + 0.535𝐸𝑅𝐶𝑠
– In this case, need to generate 0.535MWh from a new renewable or new nuclear unit for each 1MWh generated from the coal unit
Options 3+…: Combinations of (1) and (2) 31 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
+
Types of Emissions Reduction Credits (ERC) that States can Create Zero-ERC
Overcomply-ERC
Gas-ERC
Description
Created by new zero CO2 measures such as RE/EE/NUC/T&D. 1 ERC per MWh.
Created by affected EGUs over-complying vs. target rate.
Created by existing NGCCs generating more than their 2012 baseline, per EPA formula
Geographic Restrictions
Can be created by State X for measures taken in any other ratebased state*
Can be created by State X by overcomplying existing EGUs located in State X.
Can be created by State X by existing NGCCs only in State X and ONLY if State X does Subcategory Rate
Usage Restrictions
Can only be used in State X unless inter-state trading allowed
Can only be used in State X unless inter-state trading allowed
Can only be used by steam units in State X [unless inter-state trading allowed???]
* May also be created by new renewable generation in mass-based states, Canada, or Mexico, provided the power from the units is sold to any rate-based state. 32 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
What Pathway is the Least Cost for each State at Reference Gas Prices? WA MT
ME
ND
MN VT
OR
NH MA
ID
SD
WI
NY
WY
MI IA
NE
NV
PA IL
UT
CO KS
NM
MD
IN
DE
NC
TN
AR
NJ
VA
KY
MO OK
CT
OH WV
CA
AZ
RI
SC GA
MS AL TX
Rate State Rate Subcategory Mass Full Mass Existing
LA
FL
Min w Hi GasP
*Assumes no change in import/export flows between states vs. reference
33 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Introducing ‘Island’ Compliance Clean Power Plan relies heavily on states trading to achieve CO2 reductions at lower costs Some states may see limited or no trading, due to: a) Few states choosing the same compliance pathway. Trading can usually only occur between states choosing the same pathway b) Politics – a state like California is expected to over-comply, but is wary of selling CO2 allowances to other state, as that would raise emissions
Pre-existing markets – hard to see states trading with RGGI states unless they also join RGGI When a state chooses a compliance pathway, the most difficult outcome is that it must comply using only in-state resources – we call this ‘Island Compliance’
What pathway should a state choose if it cannot trade? 34 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
States’ Least Cost Pathway with Low Gas Prices
WA MT
ME
ND
MN
NH
VT
OR
MA
ID
SD
WI
NY
WY
MI IA
NE
NV
PA IL
UT
CO KS
NM
MD
IN
DE
NC
TN
AR
NJ
VA
KY
MO OK
CT
OH WV
CA
AZ
RI
SC GA
MS AL TX
Rate State Rate Subcategory Mass Full Mass Existing
LA
FL
Min w Ref GasP
*Assumes no change in import/export flows between states vs. reference
35 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
States’ Least Cost Pathway with Low Gas Prices
WA MT OR
ND
ME MN
Caveats and observations ID
NV
AZ
WI
Latest final WY results of an ongoing process, notMI
•
IA Assumes statesNEwill not change import/exports OH IL vs. the reference case IN
•
CA
MA
SD
•
UT
•
NH
VT
CO
In many cases the KS two rate options, or the two KY mass options are essentiallyMO identical in cost
NY RI PA MD
DE
WV VA NC
TN
AR Many with little NM states may be OK“in compliance” incremental effort GA
CT NJ
SC
MS
AL TX
Rate State Rate Subcategory Mass Full Mass Existing
LA
FL
Min w Ref GasP
*Assumes no change in import/export flows between states vs. reference
36 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Largest Exporters of ERCs (Rate-path) and Allowances (Mass-path) for Low Gas Price Assumptions WA
MT
ME
ND
MN VT
OR
MA
ID
SD
WI
NY
WY
MI PA IL
CO
CT
OH MD
IN
KS
NM
OK
VA
KY
MO
NC
TN
AR
NJ DE
WV
CA
AZ
RI
IA
NE
NV UT
NH
SC GA
MS AL TX
ERC Exporters
LA
FL
Mass Exporters *Allow ERC Trading and Mass Exporting 37 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
.
Largest Exporters of ERCs (Rate-path) and Allowances (Mass-path) for Low Gas Price Assumptions WA
MT ND Caveats and observations OR ID
• •
NV UT• CA
•
ME MN VT
Latest results of an ongoing process, not final SD
MA
WI
NY
WY MI states Created from two artificial cases where all chose rate, or all choose IA mass NE
RI PA
IL
MD
NM
OK
VA NC
TN
AR
NJ DE
WV
KSbe high exporters of both Some states may KY MO ERCs and allowances
AZ
CT
OH
Assumes a low gas price path (< $5/mmbtu) IN CO
NH
SC GA
MS AL TX
ERC Exporters
LA
FL
Mass Exporters . 38 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
EPRI Public Analyses to Help Utilities Understand and Communicate CPP Options for States Comparison of compliance costs for alternative pathways – Rate vs. mass? – Level of trade readiness, trade/no trade analysis
Insights on cost-effectiveness of mitigation options
Assessment of critical uncertainties – Gas prices – Load growth – Future CO2 policy
Independent, objective, timely analysis and insights packaged in an EPRI report 39 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Example of a State Supplemental Analysis Step 1 Deep dive into the state’s compliance options and resources without trading. Work with participants to fine tune state input data. Step 2 Consider neighboring states’ choices and how that might affect local power flows, and thus CPP choices for State X. WA MT
ME
ND
MN VT
OR SD
WI
NY
WY
MI PA IL
CO
CA
KS
AZ
NM
MO
OK
MD
WV
NC
TN
SC GA
MS
AL TX LA
FL
NJ DE
VA
KY
AR
CT
OH IN
Step 3
RI
IA
NE
NV UT
NH
MA
ID
Look at potential demand and supply for ERCs or CO2 across the U.S., and how trading could impact CPP choices for State X
Step 4 Analyze key sensitivities that could change the cost of different CPP pathways in State X. 2020
2030
2040
2050
Each state is unique, and the analysis is tailored accordingly, through an iterative process with participants 40 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Look Ahead 41 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
More than the Clean Power Plan: U.S Compliance Deadlines January 4, 2016 ELG Rule Effective Date
Effluent Limit Guidelines
September 6, 2016 State Plan or Initial Submittal w/ Ext. Request
Clean Power Plan Coal Combustion Residue
September 6, 2018 State Plan Submittal for States w/ Extension
US – China Agreement
April 17, 2019 Cease Receipt of Coal Ash (CCP) Not Meeting all Restrictions
December 31, 2023 Latest for ELG Compliance 2025 26%-28% economy-wide reductions below 2005
2015
2020
2025
2030
July 1, 2025 Interim Step I (2022-2024) July 1, 2028 Interim Step II (2025-2027) July 1, 2030 Interim Step III (2028-2029) July 1, 2032 Final Goal 42 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2050 80% economy-wide reductions below 2005
2040
2050
Yesterday’s Power System Residential Bulk Power System
Distribution System Commercial
Industrial
One Way Power Flow
43 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Today and Tomorrow - The Integrated Grid Consumers Become Energy Producers
Generation Becomes More Flexible
Two-way Flow
Loads Become More Interactive and Dynamic
T & D Becomes More Controllable and Resilient 44 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
21st Century – The Changing Consumer
45 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Look Ahead: Energy and Capacity 24 by 7 Electricity
Supply and Demand
Voltage Quality
Startup Power
Grid Supplied Power
46 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Capacity and Energy – Grid Connected Services
$14 $70 $56
Generation Capacity & Services
Generation Energy
$110
$3
$30 $37
Fixed T&D Distribution Capacity
$10
Transmission Variable T&D
Avg. Customer Monthly Charge
$51
Capacity-based Costs
Generation (Energy/Fixed Cost) breakdown based on PJM market analysis (2011) T&D (Fixed/Variable) cost breakdown based on current SCE Implied Cost Estimates (source: E3) 47 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
$59
Energy-based Costs
A Look Ahead: 21st Century Opportunities An Increase In the Value of... Storage – Bulk to Micro
Energy Efficiency & Automation
24x7 Quality & Capacity
Microgrids
Resiliency
Electrification
Cleaner Energy
Data Center Load Load
…To Provide: Comfort, Convenience, Choice and Control 48 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
A Look Ahead: 21st Century Externalities And New Values From... Emerging Shared Economy
Virtual Economy
Micro Sensors
Changing Consumer
Nanotechnology
Distributed Storage
Citizen Science
Information Technology
…Adding New Dimensions to Electric Products & Services 49 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Together…Shaping the Future of Electricity
50 © 2015 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
