Investor Presentaiton
8
TECHNICAL SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR CPP FINAL RULE
12 (Aug. 2015); see also JA.1661 (setting similarly
unachievable limit for natural gas plants). What's more,
EPA had long said that Section 111(d) regulations would
be "less stringent" than corresponding new-source rules,
considering the relative costs and benefits of retrofitting
existing facilities versus incorporating new technologies
into a construction blueprint. 40 Fed. Reg. at 53,340. Yet
the CPP's targets for existing sources were lower than the
standards EPA issued the same day for new sources. 80
Fed. Reg. 64,510, 64,513 (Oct. 23, 2015).
The CPP, then, did not impose traditional emission
limits. Instead, EPA created a restrictive credit system
that required sources to subsidize "energy generated or
saved with zero associated CO2 emissions" elsewhere.
JA.1605, 1615-16.
EPA was candid about the consequences of a
"standard" that made coal- and gas-fired plants' business
models functionally unlawful. The CPP would have forced
some operators into new lines of business, cutting existing
operations and investing in alternate generation types
instead. JA.593-94. Others would have had to subsidize
their competitors' or out-of-State companies' investments
to keep existing power plants online. JA.668-69. And
economic realities as they were, some plants would have
closed. JA.226-29.
Source owners and operators would have also faced
staggering implementation costs, and consumers would
have paid much higher utility bills. JA.226. The CPP
would have forced the States to reorder their electricity
infrastructure to meet energy needs—those most
dependent on fossil-fuel-fired energy sources would have
borne the brunt of it. The CPP also did away with States'
guaranteed flexibility to adjust performance standardsView entire presentation