Beyond the Clean Power Plan

The report analyzes the Eastern Interconnection Planning Collaborative (EIPC) study to demonstrate that aggressive carbon reductions in the U.S. electric sector are achievable with minimal additional cost. By re-evaluating EIPC data, Synapse Energy Economics found that a 'Carbon Reduction' scenario—featuring massive wind build-out and coal retirements—costs approximately the same as a 'Business as Usual' scenario when carbon revenues are recycled. The analysis shows that this path would allow the MISO and PJM regions to significantly over-comply with the Clean Power Plan's emissions targets while maintaining grid reliability.

• The Carbon Reduction (S1) scenario can achieve an 80 percent reduction in electric sector CO2 emissions by 2030 compared to the Business as Usual (S3) scenario.
• A re-analysis by Synapse indicates that the total ratepayer costs for the Carbon Reduction scenario are nearly identical to the Business as Usual scenario, being only about 2 percent higher, provided carbon trading revenues are recycled back into the electric sector.
• The Carbon Reduction scenario requires a substantial transmission build-out, with the majority of new line mileage located in the MISO and SPP regions.
• In the MISO region, the Carbon Reduction scenario involves building over 100 GW of new wind capacity and retiring approximately 60 GW of coal units by 2030, resulting in emissions that are significantly lower than the Clean Power Plan's mass-based targets.
• In the PJM region, the Carbon Reduction scenario predicts the retirement of 80 GW of coal capacity by 2030, leading to emissions levels less than half of what is allowed under the Clean Power Plan.
• The Carbon Reduction scenario provides significant co-benefits in criteria emissions, avoiding over 1 million tons of NOx and 1.7 million tons of SO2 by 2030.
• Updated data on wind capital costs suggests the Carbon Reduction scenario is even more economical than originally modeled; using DOE Wind Vision costs could reduce the scenario's cost by more than $100 billion.
• The EIPC modeling suffered from a lack of co-optimization between transmission and generation, meaning the resulting transmission build-out for the Carbon Reduction scenario is likely not economically optimal.

APA

Jackson, S., PhD, J. F., Fagan, B., & Ong, W. (2016). Beyond the Clean Power Plan. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/beyond-the-clean-power-plan-full-report.pdf

Chicago

Jackson, Sarah, Jeremy Fisher, PhD, Bob Fagan, and Wendy Ong. Beyond the Clean Power Plan. Union of Concerned Scientists, 2016. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/beyond-the-clean-power-plan-full-report.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Jackson |first1=Sarah |last2=PhD |first2=Jeremy Fisher, |last3=Fagan |first3=Bob |last4=Ong |first4=Wendy |title=Beyond the Clean Power Plan |publisher=Union of Concerned Scientists |date=28 January 2016 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/beyond-the-clean-power-plan-full-report.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{jackson2016beyond, author = {Jackson, Sarah and PhD, Jeremy Fisher, and Fagan, Bob and Ong, Wendy}, title = {{Beyond the Clean Power Plan}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2016}, month = jan, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/beyond-the-clean-power-plan-full-report.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }