This document provides an overview and preliminary results from an analysis of the EPA's proposed Clean Power Plan by Rhodium Group and CSIS. Key findings include: 1) The growth of shale gas has lowered natural gas prices and the cost of gas generation, making compliance with emission rate standards relatively affordable through shifting from coal to gas generation. 2) Modeling results show the CPP could significantly change the US power sector by incentivizing shifts from coal to natural gas generation and capacity additions, reducing CO2 emissions 30-37% below 2005 levels by 2030. 3) Electricity prices are projected to increase modestly under the CPP, by 4-10%, while total compliance costs average $12

1. Remaking American Power - 1
Remaking American Power
Preliminary Results
John Larsen
Rhodium Group
Sarah Ladislaw
CSIS
Whitney Ketchum
Rhodium Group
Michelle Melton
CSIS
Shashank Mohan
Rhodium Group
Trevor Houser
Rhodium Group
July 24, 2014

2. Remaking American Power - 2
Outline
 Overview of EPA Proposal
 Scope and Methodology
 Key Findings
 What Comes Next
 Appendix

3. Remaking American Power - 3
Overview of EPA’s Clean Power Plan

4. Remaking American Power - 4
Compliance:
 January 2020-December 2029: States meet interim CPP goal on average
 January 2030: States must meet final CPP goal
Implementation:
 June 2016: Initial deadline for state plan submittal
 June 2017: Extended deadline for state plan submittal at states’ request
 June 2018: Extended deadline if states choose to submit multi-state plans
Design:
 October 16, 2014 (expected): EPA CPP comment period ends
 December 2014 (expected): EPA finalizes New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS)
 June 2015 (expected): EPA finalizes CPP
Process overview

5. Remaking American Power - 5
 Requires each state to achieve a state-wide “adjusted” emissions rate
(lbs./MWH) goals on average between 2020-2029 and final goal from 2030
onward
 States may submit multi-state plans (“cooperation”)
 States may implement virtually any program so long as they demonstrate
that they can meet the goal and that standards are enforceable
Clean Power Plan (CPP) key design elements
Fuel Switching
(Renewables/Nuclear)
Energy Efficiency
Coal Efficiency Fuel Switching (Gas)
“Building Blocks”

6. Remaking American Power - 6
CSIS – RHG Analysis: Scope and
Methodology

7. Remaking American Power - 7
EPA CPP Proposal
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
RHG/CSIS interpretation
of proposal
Our goal: assess the energy system impacts of EPA’s proposal
• Industry standard multi-sector energy system model
• Detailed data on US technology costs and performance,
energy supply and demand, electric power markets,
macroeconomic factors, etc.
• Solves for the least-cost pathway to meet a given policy goal
National, Regional and Sectoral Results
RHG/CSIS analysis of
outputs
• Emissions rate targets
• Building blocks
• Compliance timeline

8. Remaking American Power - 8
Policy Scenarios
National Cooperation Regional Fragmentation
No States Include EE in Plans National w/o EE Regional w/o EE
All States Include EE in Plans National w/ EE Regional w/ EE
Scenarios
Reference Case: AEO2014 plus EPA’s proposed New Source Performance Standards (coal
plants must meet emissions rate of 1,100 lbs./MWh).
Policy Scenarios: Given the uncertainty surrounding the final EPA guidelines and
resulting State Implementation Plans, we analyze four scenarios to illustrate the potential
economic and market impact of two particularly important variables – the level impacts of
multi-state cooperation (national cooperation or regional fragmentation) and the
inclusion of energy efficiency (w/ EE or w/o EE).
The regional fragmentation w/o EE analysis was not completed in time for this
presentation, but will be included in our full report released this fall, along with side-cases
that explore different baseline energy price and demand scenarios.

9. Remaking American Power - 9
We model tradable performance standards with emission rate goals based on EPA’s
CPP proposal.
National cooperation vs. regional fragmentation
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis.
NEMS Regions
National Emission Rate Goals (lbs./MWh)
2020-2029 1,103
2030 and later 1,030
Regional Emission Rate Goals (lbs./MWh)
Region
2020-
2029
2030 and
later
Region
2020-
2029
2030 and
later
1 ERCT 853 791 12 SRDA 945 883
2 FRCC 794 740 13 SRGW 1,494 1,408
3 MROE 1,274 1,198 14 SRSE 993 923
4 MROW 1,389 1,338 15 SRCE 1,509 1,429
5 NEWE 614 565 16 SRVC 973 896
6 NYCW 635 549 17 SPNO 1,587 1,509
7 NYLI 635 549 18 SPSO 901 848
8 NYUP 635 549 19 AZNM 742 705
9 RFCE 1,030 913 20 CAMX 556 537
10 RFCM 1,227 1,161 21 NWPP 1,266 1,200
11 RFCW 1,499 1,394 22 RMPA 1,408 1,336

10. Remaking American Power - 10
Crediting energy efficiency (EE)
Key assumptions in scenarios including energy efficiency:
 Rely on EPA assumptions for EE deployment and costs with states ramping up to
1.5% incremental electricity savings by 2026 and then maintaining that level
 All savings are assumed to be real and verifiable and count towards compliance
from 2020 onward
Incorporation into NEMS:
 Adjust TPS target and NEMS electricity demand forecast to reflect EE credits from
energy savings
 Include the costs utilities incur in administering and implementing EE measures in
endogenous NEMS electric rate calculations and low compliance cost estimates
Additional calculations:
 Calculate consumer share of first-year costs incurred when participating in utility
EE programs and include in high compliance cost estimates
More information on our approach to EE can be found in the appendix

11. Remaking American Power - 11
Preliminary results from the forthcoming CSIS/RHG full report
POLICY SCENARIOS
National Cooperation w/ EE
National Cooperation w/o EE
High Natural Gas Resource
MARKET SENSITIVITIES
Low Natural Gas Resource
High Natural Gas Exports
Energy Prices
RESULTS
Regional Fragmentation w/ EE
Regional Fragmentation w/o EE
Regional Cooperation Options
Energy Efficiency Cost/Effectiveness
Energy Expenditures
Natural Gas Production/Revenue
Coal Production/Revenue
National
GEOGRAPHIC DETAIL
Power Generation/Capacity
Compliance Costs/Benefits
Census Region
Power Market
CSIS-RHGANALYSIS
JULY24FALL2014FALL2014
JULY24FALL2014JULY24FALL2014

12. Remaking American Power - 12
Other factors that will shape the ultimate impact of the CPP
This analysis considers the CPP proposal as currently constructed. The ultimate impact
of the CPP could differ from this analysis for a number of reasons, including:
 Changes in stringency due to:
 EPA changes in the final rule
 Severability of components of EPA’s assigned state goals
 Possible delays in implementation (due to legal challenges or other reasons)
 Differences between modeling assumptions and ultimate market
developments:
 Fuel resources and prices
 Cost and performance of generation technologies
 Energy demand
 EE availability and costs

13. Remaking American Power - 13
Key Findings

14. Remaking American Power - 14
Key Findings
1. The shale boom makes compliance
relatively affordable

15. Remaking American Power - 15
The shale boom has lowered the cost of gas-fired generation
Coal vs. natural gas, costs and generation
Source: EIA
Assessing the potential economic impact of the CPP requires understanding the energy landscape into which it is being
introduced. The dramatic growth in US shale gas production over the past decade has reduced the cost of power generated
with natural gas, particularly from high-efficiency natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) plants, relative to the cost of coal-
fired power. As a result, a growing share of US electricity supply in recent years has been powered by natural gas. The price-
sensitivity of dispatch in the US power sector works both ways, of course. As natural gas prices have recovered a little over
the past year and a half, so has coal-fired power generation.
NOMINAL COST OF GENERATION, $/MWH MONTHLY GENERATION, MWH
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Mar-05
Sep-05
Mar-06
Sep-06
Mar-07
Sep-07
Mar-08
Sep-08
Mar-09
Sep-09
Mar-10
Sep-10
Mar-11
Sep-11
Mar-12
Sep-12
Mar-13
Sep-13
Mar-14
Coal
Natural Gas
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mar-05
Sep-05
Mar-06
Sep-06
Mar-07
Sep-07
Mar-08
Sep-08
Mar-09
Sep-09
Mar-10
Sep-10
Mar-11
Sep-11
Mar-12
Sep-12
Mar-13
Sep-13
Mar-14
Coal Steam
Natural Gas Combined Cycle

16. Remaking American Power - 16
COAL
NATURAL GAS
PETROLEUM
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Coal-gas switch has helped reduce US CO2 emissions
Power sector CO2 emissions
Source: EIA Annual Energy Review and Annual Energy Outlook 2014
HISTORICAL CURRENT POLICY (EXCLUDES CLEAN POWER PLAN)
The price-driven switch from coal to natural gas shown in slide 15, along-side weak energy demand due to the recession
and increased renewable energy deployment, contributed to a sharp drop in CO2 emissions from the US electric power
sector between 2007 and 2012. As natural gas prices rose in 2013, so did US CO2 emissions. Absent additional policy, the
EIA projects a modest increase in power sector CO2 emissions in the years ahead. The real significance of the shale boom
from a climate change standpoint is not its direct impact on CO2 emissions, but how it changes the economic impact of
climate policy, including the CPP.

17. Remaking American Power - 17
EPA’s CPP proposal: small changes in incentives, big impact
US power generation, billion kWhs
Under current policy (pre-CPP), the EIA projects US coal generation will remain relatively flat in absolute terms in the years
ahead, with NGCC and renewables satisfying projected electricity demand growth (Reference). An emission-rate standard like
that proposed in the CPP, has the potential to significantly alter this outlook by raising the effective cost of coal generation
and lowering the effective cost of natural gas and renewable generation. At currently projected natural gas prices, switching
from coal to gas is the most cost-effective means of meeting CPP requirements (at least on the generation side), as shown
above in our National w/o EE scenario. For potential generation changes under other scenarios see slides 22 and 26.
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Other Renewables Nuclear O&G Steam and CTs NGCC Coal Fossil w/CCS
46%
19%
20%
10%
38%
29%
17%
14%
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
46%
19%
20%
10%
21%
43%
19%
15%
REFERENCE NATIONAL W/O EE
Source: EIA, Rhodium Group/CSIS

18. Remaking American Power - 18
Gas drives changes in capacity as well as generation
Change in capacity relative to 2010, GWs
Much of the increase in natural gas generation due to CPP implementation in our analysis comes from existing NGCC
plants with spare generation capacity. The CPP-driven change in the relative cost of natural gas generation also
incentivizes the construction of new NGCC capacity beyond what is projected to occur in our Reference scenario. Likewise,
the CPP prompts additional coal and low-efficiency oil and gas plant retirements. This occurs in all implementation
scenarios we analyzed, though is more pronounced when efficiency crediting is excluded (such as the National w/o EE
scenario above). Changes in renewable capacity are more scenario-dependent (but relatively small compared to NGCCs).
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Other Renewables Nuclear O&G Steam and CTs NGCC Coal Fossil w/CCS
REFERENCE
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
NATIONAL W/O EE
Source; EIA and Rhodium Group/CSIS

19. Remaking American Power - 19
Shifts in generation deliver significant CO2 emissions reductions
million metric tons
Source; EIA, EPA, Rhodium Group/CSIS. Note: EPA data reflect the “Option 1- State” scenario.
CPP-induced changes in dispatch, capacity additions and retirements can generate big reductions in power sector CO2
emissions. In the National w/o EE scenario shown above, power sector CO2 emissions fall to roughly 1,700 million metric
tons by 2020 and 1,500 million metric tons by 2030, a 30% and 37% decline from 2005 levels respectively. Setting and
meeting emission rate standards does not predetermine a specific emissions reduction pathway. Differences in policy
implementation as well as market dynamics can impact the total emission reductions achieved under the CPP. For
example, or National w/o EE scenario results in lower emissions than EPA’s own CPP projection (see slides 23 and 27).
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Historical
Reference
National w/o EE
EPA CPP

20. Remaking American Power - 20
$12
$50
$37
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Costs Benefits* Net
4.1%
13.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Clean Power Plan Waxman-Markey
Electricity prices and compliance costs (and benefits)
Source: EPA, Rhodium Group/CSIS; Note: Clean Power Plan and EPA Rate values are a simple average, Waxman-Markey Value is a generation weighted average. Range reflects the difference between EPA’s Option 1-State and Option
1-Regional scenarios. * We use the EPA’s methodology in calculating benefits, using their most conservative assumptions
In the scenarios we analyzed, CPP implementation modestly increases electricity prices, from 4% to 10% depending on the
scenario (above and slides 24 and 28). This is considerably lower than the projected impact of the 2009 Waxman-Markey
legislation, though that bill would have covered the entire economy and delivered greater emission reductions than the CPP.
In our National w/o EE scenario, total annual compliance costs average $12 billion between 2020 and 2030, compared to
public health and climate benefits of $50 billion using EPA’s methodology. Compared to the EPA analysis, our National w/o
EE scenario costs more, but also delivers larger emission reductions, and thus larger public health and climate benefits.
EPA Range
EPA Range
2020-2030 average, national cooperation without EE
AVERAGE CHANGE IN ELECTRIC RATES, 2020-2030 CPP AVERAGE COSTS AND BENEFITS(BN 2012 USD)

21. Remaking American Power - 21
Key Findings
2. Including efficiency reduces both costs
and benefits

22. Remaking American Power - 22
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Fossil w/CCS Coal NGCC O&G Steam and CTs Nuclear Renewables Other
National cooperation, billion kWhs
Crediting efficiency leads to less fuel switching…
Including energy efficiency (EE) as a compliance option reduces the amount of abatement that needs to occur through
changes in sources of power generation. Fuel switching from coal to natural gas continues to occur, but to a lesser extent
than in the National w/o EE case. The modest CPP-driven increase in nuclear and renewable generation in the National w/o
EE scenario all but disappears when efficiency is credited. States could well design implementation plans that explicitly favor
renewables over natural gas, which would lead to power sector outcomes different than those shown above which are
intended to illustrate the most cost-effective solution at currently projected natural gas prices and renewable energy costs.
Source: EIA, Rhodium Group/CSIS
WITHOUT EE
-1,000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
WITH EE

23. Remaking American Power - 23
432
714
274
528
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2020 2030
Without EE With EE
… and also less abatement
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS
Should states choose to meet their CPP emission rate targets in part by crediting efficiency improvements, total CO2
emission reductions could be lower, for two reasons. First, there is a risk states will claim credit for EE improvements that
would have occurred absent the CPP (see appendix). Second, the EPA goal was designed assuming efficiency proportionally
reduces other forms of generation. In our analysis, displacement is not proportional due to power market dynamics.
National cooperation
REDUCTION FROM REFERENCE, MN METRIC TONS REDUCTION FROM 2005, PERCENT
30%
37%
24%
29%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
2020 2030

24. Remaking American Power - 24
4.1%
2.8%
0.2%
5.4%
-2.4%
-1.4%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
Electric Rates Electricity Expenditures Energy Expenditures
Without EE
With EE
EE reduces energy expenditures (but not necessarily total costs)
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS. * We use the EPA’s methodology in calculating benefits, using their most conservative assumptions. Low EE costs only include utility EE costs, high EE costs include both utility and participant EE costs.
See appendix for more information.
CHANGE FROM REFERENCE TOTAL COSTS AND BENEFITS, BN 2012 USD
Crediting EE could likely increase electricity prices, as utilities add the cost of efficiency programs to their customers’
electricity bills, but could decrease overall energy costs as those customers buy less electricity. Estimating total compliance
costs when efficiency crediting is included requires accounting for increased spending on building efficiency improvements
and energy efficient appliances alongside the resulting decrease in energy expenditures. There is wide variation in how such
costs are calculated, as shown above. Additional discussion of this point is available in the appendix.
2020-2030 average, national cooperation
$12
-$1
$19
$50
$37 $37$37 $38
$18
-$10
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Without EE With EE (Low) With EE (High)
Costs
Benefits
Net

25. Remaking American Power - 25
Key Findings
3. Cooperation lowers costs

26. Remaking American Power - 26
Includes efficiency crediting, billion kWhs
Less cooperation means more fuel switching…
In our National Cooperation scenarios, all states are allowed to trade compliance credits. When such trading is excluded,
and each of the 22 power market regions included in our analysis meet their CPP obligations independently, more coal-gas
fuel switching is required to meet the CPP targets. Natural gas generation increases further to offset a slight decline in
renewable generation, as the regions with the best renewable resources have less opportunity to utilize them in achieving
combined state-level emission rate targets.
NATIONAL COOPERATION REGIONAL FRAGMENTATION
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Fossil w/CCS Coal NGCC O&G Steam and CTs Nuclear Renewables Other
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
Source: EIA, Rhodium Group

27. Remaking American Power - 27
274
528
419
618
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2020 2030
National Cooperation Regional Fragmentation
… and also more abatement
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS
Greater fuel switching when interstate credit trading is excluded (Regional Fragmentation), along with higher electricity
prices (see slide 28), yields emission reductions greater than in our National Cooperation scenario. This is particularly
true in the first part of the compliance period.
Includes efficiency crediting
REDUCTION FROM REFERENCE, MN METRIC TONS REDUCTION FROM 2005, PERCENT
24%
29%30%
33%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2020 2030

28. Remaking American Power - 28
Cooperation reduces both energy and compliance costs
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS. * We use the EPA’s methodology in calculating benefits, using their most conservative assumptions. Low EE costs only include utility EE costs, high EE costs include both utility and participant EE costs.
See appendix for more information.
CHANGE FROM REFERENCE TOTAL COSTS AND BENEFITS, BN 2012 USD
The increased abatement shown on slide 27 comes at a cost. CPP-driven changes in electric prices are higher, and potential
EE-related energy cost savings lower, when the level of interstate cooperation is reduced. Total compliance costs are more
than $10 billion higher, on average, between 2020 and 2030 in the Regional Fragmentation scenario relative to the
National Cooperation case. While some fragmentation is likely under the CPP, the more state cooperate that occurs the
lower the plan’s national cost will be.
2020-2030 average, includes energy efficiency
-$1
$11
$19
$32
$37
$39
$37
$39$38
$28
$18
$7
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
National
Cooperation
Regional
Fragentation
National
Cooperation
Regional
Fragentation
Costs
Benefits
Net
LOW EE COSTS HIGH EE COSTS
5.4%
-2.4%
-1.4%
9.9%
0.6%
-0.7%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
Electric Rates Electricity Expenditures Energy Expenditures
National Cooperation
Regional Fragentation

29. Remaking American Power - 29
Key Findings
4. The energy market impacts of the CPP
are potentially significant

30. Remaking American Power - 30
The CPP could result in a large increase in natural gas demand…
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS
Change in average annual natural gas production and consumption, 2020-2030,
national coordination vs. reference scenario
BILLION CUBIC FEET PER DAY PERCENT
10.2
10.7
3.6
3.1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Production Consumption
Without EE With EE
11.8%
13.8%
4.2% 4.0%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
Production Consumption
CPP-driven changes in the electric power sector have significant implications for the US energy market as a whole. Meeting
EPA’s emission rate targets by switching from coal to natural gas – the most cost-effective generation solution at currently
projected prices – results in a 14% average increase in US natural gas demand between 2020 and 2030 in our National w/o
EE scenario. The vast majority of this is met through an increase in domestic production, with a small reduction in exports
to Mexico and small increase in imports from Canada. Crediting efficiency, however, could reduce this increase in US gas
demand by more than two thirds.

31. Remaking American Power - 31
-453 -463
-287 -299
-500
-450
-400
-350
-300
-250
-200
-150
-100
-50
0
Production Consumption
Without EE With EE
… and a large decrease in coal consumption
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS
Change in average annual coal production and consumption, 2020-2030,
national coordination vs. reference scenario
MILLION SHORT TONS PERCENT
-40.9%
-46.9%
-25.9%
-30.3%
-50%
-45%
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
Production Consumption
CPP implementation could result in a similarly large change in domestic US coal markets. In our National w/o EE scenario,
domestic coal consumption falls by 47% on average between 2020 and 2030 relative to Reference. While increased exports
(limited to currently available export infrastructure) offset some of the impact of this decline in domestic sales on US coal
producers, total coal output still falls by 41%. Crediting efficiency mitigates coal production declines, with a 30% reduction
in consumption and 26% reduction in production on average between 2020 and 2030 in our National w/ EE scenario.

32. Remaking American Power - 32
Shale resources limit the price response to changes in demand
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS
Change in annual average natural gas and coal price, 2020-2030, national
coordination vs. reference scenario
NATURAL GAS COAL
8.8%
2.4%
1.1%
-1.1%-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Wellhead Delivered
Without EE With EE
6.8%
-2.9%
1.3%
-4.4%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
Mine-mouth Delivered
Using current EIA estimates for shale gas resource availability and cost, the CPP-driven increase in gas demand shown in
slide 30 results in a relatively modest increase in natural gas prices. In our National w/ EE scenario, wellhead prices rise by
9% on average between 2020 and 2030, while delivered prices increase by less than 3%. With efficiency crediting the
change in price is even smaller. Lower thermal coal demand increases average mine-mouth coal prices, as high-value
metallurgical coal accounts for a greater share of total coal production. Delivered coal prices, however, fall.

33. Remaking American Power - 33
$32.0
$38.0
$5.9 $6.3
-$40
-$30
-$20
-$10
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Producer Sales
Without EE With EE
Upstream impacts are potentially larger than downstream effects
Change in annual average natural gas and coal production revenue and total
energy expenditures, 2020-2030, national cooperation vs. reference scenario,
billion 2012 USD
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS
-$20.6
-$27.8
-$13.9
-$19.1
-$40
-$30
-$20
-$10
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Producer Sales
$3.3
-$19.9
-$40
-$30
-$20
-$10
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
Economy-wide
NATURAL GAS REVENUE COAL REVENUE ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Meaningfully higher gas production, and slightly higher gas prices, boosts natural gas production revenue in our National
w/o EE scenario by $32 billion on average between 2020 and 2030, a 20% increase relative to the Reference scenario.
Including distribution costs, average annual natural gas sales revenue increases by $38 billion. This is matched by a
similarly large decrease in coal production and sales revenue. From a regional economic standpoint, this shift in upstream
fuel production revenue is potentially far more significant than changes in electricity prices or consumer energy costs.

34. Remaking American Power - 34
Key Findings
5. Compliance costs are not the same as
economic impact

35. Remaking American Power - 35
Pacific
Mountain
West North
Central
West South Central
East North
Central
New England
Mid Atlantic
South
Atlantic
East South
Central
Census Regions

36. Remaking American Power - 36
Compliance obligation is only part of the picture
EPA expected per capita emission reductions by region, 2020-2030 average
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.5
2.1
0.6
3.1
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
New EnglandMiddle AtlanticEast North
Central
West North
Central
South AtlanticEast South
Central
West South
Central
MountainPacific
Source: EPA
EPA developed the state-level emission rate targets included in the CPP based on an assessment of the opportunity for
cost-effective emission reductions in each state (the “building blocks” discussed on slide 5). This results in emission
reduction expectations that are regionally uneven, as shown above, raising the prospect of regional disparities in the cost
of CPP implementation and resulting changes in electricity prices and energy bills. A complete assessment of the regional
economic impact of the CPP, however, requires looking at potential changes in upstream fuel supply, as well as
downstream electricity costs.

37. Remaking American Power - 37
Upstream impacts are important, and also vary by region
$0.0
-$2.1
-$4.3
-$0.3
-$2.9-$2.5
-$1.0
-$7.5
$0.0
$0.0
$5.3
$0.2
$1.5$1.6
$0.3
$17.7
$5.1
$0.3
-$10
-$5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
NewEngland
Mid-Atlantic
EastNorthCentral
WestNorthCentral
SouthAtlantic
EastSouthCentral
WestSouthCentral
Mountain
Pacific
Natural Gas
Coal
WITHOUT EE
$0.0
-$1.5
-$2.8
-$0.1
-$2.3-$1.7
-$0.6
-$4.9
$0.0 $0.0
$1.0$0.0$0.5$0.3$0.0
$4.0
$0.6
-$0.6
-$10
-$5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
NewEngland
Mid-Atlantic
EastNorthCentral
WestNorthCentral
SouthAtlantic
EastSouthCentral
WestSouthCentral
Mountain
Pacific
Natural Gas
Coal
WITH EE
Change in average annual production revenue, 2012 billion USD, 2020-2030,
national cooperation
Some parts of the country could see a significant increase in natural gas production revenue as a result of the CPP, benefiting
not just gas companies and employees, but also private land owners, state budgets and sectors of the economy directly tied to
natural gas production. The potential upside is largest in the West South Central region (Texas, Arkansas, Oklahoma and
Louisiana) which also has the highest emission reduction expectations under the CPP. Likewise, some parts of the country
could see a significant decline in coal production revenue, including Powder River and Illinois Basin producers.
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS.

38. Remaking American Power - 38
Including upstream impacts changes the economic picture
$0.0
-$2.1
-$4.3
-$0.3
-$2.9-$2.5
-$1.0
-$7.5
$0.0
$0.0
$5.3
$0.2
$1.5$1.6
$0.3
$17.7
$5.1
$0.3
-$10
-$5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
NewEngland
Mid-Atlantic
EastNorthCentral
WestNorthCentral
SouthAtlantic
EastSouthCentral
WestSouthCentral
Mountain
Pacific
Natural Gas
Coal
PRODUCTION REVENUE
-$0.1
$0.1
$2.0
$3.6
$2.6$2.5$1.8$1.0
-$1.8 -$0.1
-$0.6-$0.5-$0.4
-$1.4-$0.9-$0.7
-$1.9
-$1.7
-$10
-$5
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
NewEngland
Mid-Atlantic
EastNorthCentral
WestNorthCentral
SouthAtlantic
EastSouthCentral
WestSouthCentral
Mountain
Pacific
Other
Electricity
ENERGY EXPENDITURES
Change in average annual production revenue and energy expenditures, 2012
billion USD, 2020-2030, national cooperation without EE
Source: Rhodium Group/CSIS.
In some regions, these changes in coal and natural gas production revenue are considerably larger than potential CPP-
driven changes in electricity and other energy costs. For example, in our National w/o EE scenario, the West South Central
census region sees a $16.7 billion net increase in annual coal and gas production revenue relative to Reference vs. a $1.1
billion net increase in household and business energy costs. For the East North Central region, the decline in Illinois Basin
coal production revenue is more than twice as large as the projected increase in region-wide energy expenditures.

39. Remaking American Power - 39
What Comes Next

40. Remaking American Power - 40
Additional analysis in the full report
POLICY SCENARIOS
National Cooperation w/ EE
National Cooperation w/o EE
High Natural Gas Resource
MARKET SENSITIVITIES
Low Natural Gas Resource
High Natural Gas Exports
Energy Prices
RESULTS
Regional Fragmentation w/ EE
Regional Fragmentation w/o EE
Regional Cooperation Options
Energy Efficiency Cost/Effectiveness
Energy Expenditures
Natural Gas Production/Revenue
Coal Production/Revenue
National
GEOGRAPHIC DETAIL
Power Generation/Capacity
Compliance Costs/Benefits
Census Region
Power Market
CSIS-RHGANALYSIS
JULY24FALL2014FALL2014
JULY24FALL2014JULY24FALL2014

41. Remaking American Power - 41
Appendix

42. Remaking American Power - 42
How EPA proposal elements are addressed
EPA CPP Proposal Element Analytical Treatment
State by state or multi-state implementation plans
Implementation nationally or implementation in 22 separate regions
depending on scenario
State specific adjusted emission rate goals Aggregated state goals as appropriate for each scenario
2020-2029 and 2030 and later compliance periods Included
Requirement that plans must contain enforceable standards on existing
fossil generators that achieve state specified goals at a minimum
Impose tradable performance standards on existing fossil generators to
achieve state goals at least cost
Market-based mechanisms in states plans is permitted
National cases assumes nationwide trading of tradable performance
standard compliance credits. Regional case allows trading within a
region but not between regions
Abatement
Options
Considered
Heat rate improvements at coal plants Not included due to model limitations
Dispatch shifts from coal to existing Natural Gas
Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants
Included, can count towards goals
Displace existing fossil generation with zero-emitting
generation (e.g. nuclear and renewables)
Utility scale and distributed generation included, only utility scale
generation receives credit towards goals
Displace existing fossil generation with demand-side
EE
Included in EE scenarios (see appendix) using EPA’s assumptions and
counts towards goals
Anything else that displaces emissions from existing
fossil generation
CCS retrofits and displacement of existing fossil with new fossil are
included but do not count towards goals

43. Remaking American Power - 43
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS)
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis.
Captures the full impact of electric power sector policies by assessing the interactive
effects of supply and demand across the entire US energy system

44. Remaking American Power - 44
Overview the NEMS Electricity Market Module
Capacity
Planning
Fuel
Dispatch
Finance &
Pricing
Load and
Demand
Available
Capacity
Fuel
Demand
Electricity
Prices
Load
Curves
Capacity
Additions
Electricity Market Module
Exogenous
Inputs
Financial data Tax assumptions Capital costs O&M costs Operating parameters
Emission rates New technologies Existing facilities Transmission constraints
Inputs from
other modules
Electricity sales Fuel prices Cogeneration
Renewable technology parameters GDP Interest rates
With perfect foresight
Outputs
Electricity prices
Price components
Fuel demand
Capacity additions
Capital requirements
Emissions

45. Remaking American Power - 45
Modeling a tradable performance standard
Coding enhancements in the Electric Market Module (EMM) in NEMS
Electricity Capacity
Planning
Submodule
Electricity Fuel
Dispatch
Submodule
Electricity Load
Demand
Submodule
Electricity Finance
and Pricing
Submodule
Tradable Performance Standard (TPS)
TPS credit price
Available capacity
Peak load demand
Fuel costs
O&M costs
(includes
constraint costs)
Projected load curves
• Generation constraint
produces credit price
• Shares assigned by plant
type
• Credit price share applied
to VO&M
• Plant shares assigned by
emissions rate

46. Remaking American Power - 46
NEMS Electricity Market Module regions
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Office of Energy Analysis.

47. Remaking American Power - 47
Crediting energy efficiency
NEMS is not capable of including EE as an explicit compliance option that can be chosen endogenously by the model.
Instead, an approach similar to the one used by EPA in its Regulatory Impact Analysis of the CPP was used. This approach
was implemented in the following steps.
Incorporate EPA’s cost and deployment assumptions into NEMS:
 Include EPA’s cost values for first-year utility and participant costs including cost escalators as well as measure-life
assumptions.
 Include EPA’s assumption that all states ramp up to 1.5% incremental savings per year by 2026. Calculate savings by
census region using retail sales weighted averages of EPA’s state-by-state annual targets.
 Adjust incremental savings goals to account for implicit savings from state EE programs captured in the reference case.
These adjustments vary from region to region but add up to .18% annual average incremental retail sales nationally.
 All energy savings are assumed to be real and verfiable.
 Adjust reference case NEMS electricity demand forecast to include EE program energy savings.
 Adjust reference case NEMS electric rates to include first-year utility EE costs in rate recovery calculations.
Credit EE energy savings in TPS
 From 2020 onward, credits from energy savings (including implicit savings) are assumed to be used for compliance in
the year the savings are achieved.
 TPS targets are adjusted to account for EE credits
Account for EE costs
 Assume costs of implicit savings are already included in reference case electricity forecast
 Low EE cost estimates: Reflect annual national utility EE cost rate recovery amount only. This amount will vary from
the total first-year cost due to NEMS rate recovery calculations but all first year costs are typically recovered over two
years.
 High EE cost estimates: Include Low EE costs estimate plus all first-year participant costs, which are assumed to be
incurred in year one and not financed.

48. Remaking American Power - 48
Rescaling NEMS fuel production output
Source: EIA and Rhodium Group/CSIS
Based on current distribution
of mine production
Differentiate by coal rank
Based on current distribution
of proven reserves
Differentiate by resource type
Coal Supply Regions Census Regions Oil & Gas Supply Regions
All other regional output is
reported by Census Region

49. Remaking American Power - 49
Calculating benefits
Climate Benefits
• Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values were sourced from the latest guidance from the US Office of
Management and Budget
• Low estimates presented in this document relied on the 5% discount rate SCC values. High
estimates based on the 2.5% discount rate SCC will be included in the final release.
• Annual SCC values were multiplied by annual CO2 abatement output from NEMS to produce an
annual climate benefits value.
Public Health Benefits
• National per-ton benefit values for SO2 and NOx abatement in the electric power sector were
sourced from the latest relevant EPA technical support document.
• Low estimates presented in this document relied on 7% discount rate, low mortality estimate
values. High estimates based on 3% discount rate high mortality estimate values will be
included in the final release.
• Values were interpolated between reported years and multiplied by annual SO2 and NOx
abatement output from NEMS to produce annual public health benefit values.
All benefit values are reported in real 2012 dollars

50. Remaking American Power - 50
Remaking American Power
Preliminary Results
John Larsen
Rhodium Group
Sarah Ladislaw
CSIS
Whitney Ketchum
Rhodium Group
Michelle Melton
CSIS
Shashank Mohan
Rhodium Group
Trevor Houser
Rhodium Group