Meeting the Clean Power Plan Technical Appendix

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) utilized the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL) Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) to assess the Clean Power Plan. The analysis incorporates modified cost and performance assumptions for various energy technologies, including a rejection of EIA 'learning' curves for mature technologies and specific adjustments for nuclear, coal, and renewables. The study compares four scenarios: a Reference Case, a CPP National Trading Case, a CPP No Trading Case, and a 'Clean Path' Case involving enhanced state-level policies in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

• The UCS modified NREL's capital-cost assumptions by rejecting the EIA's 'learning' assumptions for mature technologies, arguing that the EIA approach fails to account for international market growth and R&D improvements. Instead, the UCS assumes costs for mature technologies remain fixed, while costs for emerging technologies decline independently of penetration levels.
• Specific technology assumptions were adjusted: nuclear plants are assumed to receive a 20-year license extension to operate for 60 years before retirement; biomass supply is projected at 680 million tons per year by 2030; and the construction of large hydro dams is restricted until after 2019 due to long lead times.
• The analysis employs four distinct scenarios: a Reference Case (existing policies), a CPP National Trading Case (mass-based approach with interstate trading), a CPP No Trading Case (no interstate trading except for RGGI states), and a 'Clean Path' Case (incorporating federal tax credit extensions and aggressive state-specific policies).
• The 'Clean Path' Case assumes specific policy enhancements for six states: Illinois (35% renewable generation by 2030), Michigan (30% renewable energy by 2030), Minnesota (40% renewable energy by 2030), New Mexico (31% renewable generation by 2030), Pennsylvania (20% renewable generation by 2030), and Virginia (16% renewable generation by 2030).
• To calculate the monetary value of carbon dioxide reduction, the UCS used the EPA's social cost of carbon (SCC) values, which range from $37 per ton of CO2 in 2015 to $51 per ton in 2030.

APA

Union of Concerned Scientists (2016). Meeting the Clean Power Plan Technical Appendix. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/clean-power-plan-technical-appendix.pdf

Chicago

Union of Concerned Scientists. Meeting the Clean Power Plan Technical Appendix. 2016. https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/clean-power-plan-technical-appendix.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Union of Concerned Scientists |title=Meeting the Clean Power Plan Technical Appendix |date=February 2016 |url=https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/clean-power-plan-technical-appendix.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{unionofconcernedscientists2016meeting, author = {{Union of Concerned Scientists}}, title = {{Meeting the Clean Power Plan Technical Appendix}}, institution = {Union of Concerned Scientists}, year = {2016}, month = feb, url = {https://www.ucs.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/02/clean-power-plan-technical-appendix.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }