By David Jwanier, Ted Caddell and Michael Brooks

WASHINGTON – The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to cut carbon dioxide emissions 30% from 2005 levels won’t fall evenly on all states.

Coal-heavy Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio will be required to make major changes in their generation mixes by 2030, while states such as Delaware — which participates in the northeast cap-and-trade program and has a less carbon-intensive generation — may need to do little more than continue their current efforts.

In percentage terms, however, Kentucky and West Virginia will need to reduce their carbon by half as much as less carbon-intensive states such as New Jersey.

The EPA said it attempted to determine what was “practical and affordable” for individual states, taking into account factors such as their current generation mixes and the availability of natural gas.

The EPA identified four “building blocks” that states can use to meet their targets, including unit-level efficiency improvements for coal-fired units (4% from implementing best practices plus 2% from replacing equipment); fuel switching from coal to natural gas; renewable energy and nuclear power; and demand-side energy efficiency (based on savings of up to 1.5% annually including existing state EE programs). (See related story, PJM Welcomes Rule’s ‘Flexibility’; Generators’ Views Mixed.)

The rule is intended to minimize the economic hurt on states like West Virginia and Kentucky and, thus, the political blowback. As a result, the relative carbon intensity of the states’ electric systems won’t change much by 2030.

Kentucky, West Virginia and Indiana, the top-ranked PJM states in 2012 carbon emissions per MWh, would have to cut their emissions by only 20% and would still retain their top ranks in carbon intensity in 2030. Meanwhile, New Jersey, which ranks last among the 13 PJM states in 2012 emissions/MWh, will have to cut its emissions the most in percentage terms (43%).

Most of the states would remain in the same rank order in 2030 or shift only one rank. The exceptions are two states that would swap positions: Tennessee (drops from fourth to seventh) and Ohio (rises from seventh to fourth).

“It’s clear that EPA spent a lot of time listening to concerns,” said Steve Fine, vice president of ICF International in an interview. “While wanting to push for pretty aggressive carbon reductions by 2030, they certainly made an attempt to take into account state-specific circumstances.”

Despite the EPA’s efforts to create what it called a “flexible” standard, some coal-state politicians vowed to fight the rule, which will be open for comment for 120 days and — barring court challenges — finalized in June 2015. States will have at least one year after the final rule is published to submit implementation plans for the EPA’s approval.

Below is a first look at the potential impact of the rule on PJM states and the reaction from them, ranked by 2012 carbon intensity. (The District of Columbia has no fossil fuel generation and is exempt.)

1. KENTUCKY

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 83 million
• 2012 emission rate: 2,158 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,763 lb/MWh (-18%)

Gov. Steve Beshear released a statement noting his opposition to the carbon rule issued last year for new power plants, which would essentially ban new coal-fired plants without carbon-capture technology, a rule he said “would decimate Kentucky’s economy.

“Since then, my administration has worked hard to provide viable alternatives to the Obama administration that recognize the uniqueness of states like Kentucky and provide flexibility to help those states be a part of the solution.

“I appreciate that the proposed rule regarding existing power plants announced today does recognize that differences do exist among manufacturing states and in states that produce the nation’s energy. However, I am still extremely concerned that it does not provide adequate flexibility or attainable goals.”

2. WEST VIRGINIA

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 66 million
• 2012 emission rate: 2,019 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,620 lb/MWh (-20%)

There was little uncertainty in West Virginia, where federal lawmakers from the state are already prepared to take steps to fight the rule.

Democratic Rep. Nick Rahall will work with Republican Rep. David McKinley with the goal of stopping the EPA’s rule on existing power plants and an earlier proposal covering yet-to-be-built plants. Rahall said the proposals would “wreak havoc” on the state’s coal industry if implemented.

Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin agreed in a statement. “If these rules are put into place, our manufacturers may be forced to look overseas for more reasonable energy costs, taking good paying jobs with them and leaving hardworking West Virginians without jobs to support their families. We must make every effort to create opportunities for our young people, not hinder them,” he said.

Tomblin pledged to form a working group of diverse voices from across the state to determine the impacts of the new regulations and challenges for West Virginia’s energy industry, as well as opportunities to diversify the state’s economy.

Randy Huffman, secretary of the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, said of the proposed EPA rules: “The most obvious thing that jumps out at you is that, in order to achieve the proposed standards, the role that coal plays in the West Virginia energy mix will diminish significantly.”

He said the mix is currently 96% coal, and that 60% of all energy produced from coal is exported, which provides important revenues for the state’s energy companies.

3. INDIANA

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 92 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,923 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,531 lb/MWh (-20%)

Gov. Mike Pence said the Obama Administration is advancing its “anti-coal” agenda without regard for the impact on the U.S. economy or workers.

“As a state that relies heavily on coal-burning power plants, these proposed regulations will be devastating for Hoosier workers and families,” Pence said. “They will cost us in higher electricity rates, in lost jobs and in lost business growth due to a lack of affordable, reliable electricity. Indiana will oppose these regulations using every means available.

“The proposal makes good on then-presidential candidate Obama’s statements in 2008 that under his plan electricity prices would ‘necessarily skyrocket,’ and that anyone who built a coal-fired electricity power plant would be bankrupted.”

Pence said he opposed the rules in 2009 when Democrats in Congress attempted to pass cap-and-trade, and he opposes them now.

Republican U.S. Sen. Dan Coats echoed Pence’s remarks. “By supporting these regulations, the president is putting our economic well-being, grid reliability and American jobs at risk,” Coats said.

More: Eaglecountryonline.com

4. TENNESSEE

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 37 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,903 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,163 lb/MWh (-39%)

Reaction in Tennessee was mixed.

TVA CEO Bill Johnson said the utility has been cutting emissions since 2005. Johnson said in a conference call that the utility has cut its carbon dioxide emissions by about 30% since 2005 and expects a 40% reduction by 2020. TVA said by 2020, its carbon emissions will be about half of what they were at the 1995 peak.

U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper (D) said EPA acted “because Congress failed to.”

“I haven’t seen the new regulation yet, but I am hopeful it will insure against any more harm to the planet. Every nation needs to join our effort,” Cooper said.

U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R), vice chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the regulations were a continuation of “the Obama administration’s war on coal.”

“This rule is another tax on the American taxpayers and will lead to higher electricity rates and fees,” she said in a statement.

State Rep. Glen Casada, chairman of the House Republican Caucus, said the new rules will cost jobs. “It’s going to cause our electric bills to go up dramatically and for really no empirical data reason why,” he said.

Casada said he will look for legislative ways around the requirements. “The exact solution is still being worked out, but I think the first step should be to say, ‘Mr. President, you don’t have the authority to do this. The Constitution does not give you this right,'” Casada said.

More: The Tennessean; NewsChannel5.com; AL.com

5. ILLINOIS

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 87 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,895 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,271 lb/MWh (-33%)

Illinois officials and lawmakers applauded the EPA’s proposal and say the state is well-prepared to meet its new emission-reduction goals.

“It is important that we take serious, comprehensive action to reduce carbon emissions, so I look forward to reviewing the draft guidelines of the federal plan in detail and helping to develop a flexible and effective approach for Illinois,” state Attorney General Lisa Madigan said.

“Communities in Illinois are already leading the nation in choosing power that is renewable, affordable and clean,” U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D) said in a statement. “I will continue to support these efforts and other investments in innovative technologies … that create Illinois jobs now and invest in clean energy sources for the future.”

Illinois already generates almost half of its power from nuclear plants, but only gets 6% from natural gas.

The EPA’s proposal comes just days after state lawmakers passed a bill freeing up $30 million for purchasing solar power.

More: WLS-TV

6. MARYLAND

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 18 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,870 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,187 lb/MWh (-37%)

Gov. Martin O’Malley said he supports the rule because it will improve public health and help neutralize climate change and rising sea levels in the state. He said it would also help Maryland expand its use of renewable energy sources and “unleash the power of our innovative green economy.

“We are already witnessing a transformation in the U.S. economy to increased production of lower carbon energy through fuel switching to natural gas and expansion of wind, solar, geothermal and other renewable non-carbon intensive energy sources,” O’Malley said in a statement.

Maryland is one of two PJM states, along with Delaware, that participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) cap-and-trade program.

7. OHIO

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 93 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,850 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,338 lb/MWh (-28%)

In Ohio, which gets nearly 70% of its power from coal, legislators are expected to act quickly on a bill that would seek to limit the impact of the EPA’s proposal. The bill would require that any plan to reach this goal submitted by the state to the EPA maintain electricity affordability and minimize effects on consumers. Republican state Rep. Andy Thompson, the bill’s sponsor, said it has bipartisan support.

“It’s kind of a delicate dance because the Ohio EPA has to reconcile itself to what the federal EPA is doing,” Thompson said.

The EPA’s proposal comes just days after legislators approved a bill, which Gov. John Kasich is expected to sign, pausing the state’s renewable energy standards for two years while a committee studies the issue.

“Ohio is now tying one hand behind its back and taking renewables and energy efficiency out of the mix of tools” state officials can use to reduce carbon pollution, said Steve Frenkel, Midwest director of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Ohio EPA Director Craig W. Butler said he was still evaluating “how exactly this proposal impacts Ohio. We are, of course, concerned with anything that could hurt Ohio’s economy at a time when we are just beginning to get back on track,” he said.

More: Associated Press

8. MICHIGAN

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 63 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,696 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,161 lb/MWh (-32%)

The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality stressed the importance of flexible targets, especially for manufacturing states like Michigan that have a higher percentage of coal-fired power plants.

“If we have to achieve a goal too fast and too much, it will create reliability and affordability issues not only for ratepayers but also Michigan’s economy, and it would put Michigan at a competitive disadvantage,” department director Dan Wyant said.

He said the state’s cap should take into account energy efficiency as well as gains it has already made in alternative energy. Michigan is on track to meet a renewable energy standard of 10% by 2015.

Detroit-based DTE Energy plans to replace its older coal plants, about a third of its coal-fired capacity in the state, by 2025 and replace them with wind power and natural gas plants. The company has spent nearly $2 billion on emissions control equipment for its Monroe Power Plant and is pursuing a license to build a new nuclear power plant.

Consumers Energy plans to retire its seven oldest coal plants by the second quarter of 2016 and is building its second wind farm. “We previously established a goal of reducing our carbon emissions by 20% by 2025 and are making more than $1 billion in investments in clear air equipment at our power generating facilities,” spokesman Dan Bishop said in a statement.

More: MichiganLive

9. NORTH CAROLINA

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 53 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,646 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 992 lb/MWh (-40%)

“At this point, we have more questions, probably, than the media does,” Tom Mather, of North Carolina’s Air Division of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said in an interview yesterday.

“In their fact sheets, [EPA is] comparing a lot of this to 2005, which led us to believe that would be the baseline, but in the [conference call with state environmental representatives] they are referring to 2012, and that makes a huge difference to North Carolina,” he said.

Mather cited the North Carolina Smokestacks Act, which required significant emissions reductions by Duke Energy and Progress Energy — a 75% reduction of nitrogen oxides (NO_x) and sulfur dioxide (SO₂) from 1998 levels by 2012.

“In meeting the goals for NO_x and SO₂, the companies closed a number of older coal-fired power plants and converted others to natural gas — effectively reducing their CO₂ emissions in the process,” Mather said. “The companies also have invested a lot of money in energy production from alternative sources of energy including solar, wind and biomass in complying with another state law that sets a renewal energy portfolio for the state.”

“We do not know if we would get credit for those CO₂ emissions reductions under the proposal EPA carbon rule,” Mather said. “That is one of the questions we are trying to get answered.”

Mather said the issue of imports also caused confusion.

“One of the callers was from Kansas, and they have a lot of wind generation, but it is sold out of state, so who gets credit for that, Kansas, or the state where the utility is based?” Mather said. “The [EPA] administrator frankly didn’t have the answer to that question.”

10. PENNSYLVANIA

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 106
• 2012 emission rate: 1,540 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 1,052 lb/MWh (-32%)

In Pennsylvania, a state with 63,000 coal industry jobs, the proposed rule was met with concern.

“While we continue to review the EPA’s proposed rulemaking in detail, I am concerned that these new mandates will eventually shut down hundreds of coal-fired power plants across the country and destroy thousands of family-sustaining jobs,” Gov. Tom Corbett said. “Anything that seeks to or has the effect of shutting down coal-fired power plants is an assault on Pennsylvania jobs, consumers and those citizens who rely upon affordable, abundant domestic energy.”

He said greenhouse emissions in the Keystone State are already at their lowest levels since 1994 and will be reduced further by cleaner coal technology.

11. VIRGINIA

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 25 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,297 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 810 lb/MWh (-38%)

“It’s a very complex document that my staff and I are just beginning to delve into,” said Michael G. Dowd, the director of the Air Division of Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality. “So we have no immediate reaction to the proposed rule.”

12. DELAWARE

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 4 million
• 2012 emission rate: 1,234 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 841 lb/MWh (-32%)

Collin O’Mara, secretary of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, said that the state should hit its target by 2020 or sooner through its RPS and EE programs and its participation in the RGGI.

He noted that the state shut down the Indian River Unit 3 coal-fired plant last year, a reduction not reflected in its 2012 numbers. Calpine’s planned combined-cycle plant in Dover will also bring down its average, he said.

In addition, RGGI is lowering its cap on carbon emissions by 2.5% annually.

O’Mara, who attended EPA Secretary Gina McCarthy’s announcement yesterday, said several non-member states, including some in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest, have contacted RGGI for information, although none have thus far committed. “They like that it’s a plug-and-play approach,” he told RTO Insider after the announcement.

13. NEW JERSEY

• 2012 power sector CO₂ emissions (metric tons): 12 million
• 2012 emission rate: 932 lb/MWh
• 2030 emission target: 531 lb/MWh (-43%)

Gov. Chris Christie pulled the state out of RGGI in 2011 and has vetoed attempts by the legislature to rejoin. Nevertheless, Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection, said the state’s power sector emissions have already dropped to 503 lb/MWh, below the 2030 target.

“We have virtually eliminated coal plants in this state,” he said. “Most have been replaced by natural gas,” and most gas plants have tended to be combined-cycle ones, the cleanest designs of their kind available. These plants can help balance wind generation, he said.

U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D) applauded the administration’s move, as did several environmental groups who called the proposed rules an important step toward mitigating the effects of climate change.

More: Asbury Park Press