 BSER

o The proposed rule applies national BSER findings to set goals for individual states. 

 BSER determination: Can EPA consider state-specific BSER findings re. cost, 

feasibility, etc of building blocks? Misha

 Achievable Emission Reductions from BSER: Would EPA modify the assumptions 

re. achievable emission reductions from BSER on a state specific basis? Misha

 What information would EPA need to modify BSER findings or assumptions re. 

achievable emission reductions on a state specific basis? Misha

o In addition to cost and technical feasibility, does the BSER analysis/determination 

consider other state or site-specific environmental concerns? Are there other issues that 

may affect the BSER finding? Misha

o How does EPA account for stranded capacity and/or transmission upgrades in the cost 

of proposed measures? Misha/Meroney

 Affected EGU

o Can an EGU w/ nameplate capacity above the 25 MW threshold avoid being an 

“affected EGU” (application of the rule) by reducing generation below 25MW threshold? 

Mark/Fisher

 What is the reasoning/purpose behind the different phrasing in proposed 40 

CFR §60.5795 (b)(1) & (2)? (“was constructed for the purpose of supplying” vs. 

“was constructed for the purposes of supplying, and supplies”) Jim K-C

o How would this rule affect non-coal, non-natural gas, fossil EGUs (>25MW)? 

Mark/Sherry

 What is the role of these EGUs in goal computation and state compliance? Mark

 Are their emissions counted in our state emission rate average (baseline and/or 

target)? Mark

 Can carbon reductions at those plants be applied toward achieving our state 

goal? Mark

 Goal Computation

o Is EPA open to adjustments to the baseline numbers based on events after 2012? Misha

o If a facility was constructed and permitted before 2012 but had not commenced 

commercial operation before the publication of the proposed/final rule, can estimated 

data for that plant be included in the 2012 baseline? Mark/Fisher

o 2005 vs. 2012 baseline. What is the reason for using a 2012 baseline instead of a 2005 

baseline? Mark/Fisher

 States anticipated credit for measures taken since 2005 towards state 

compliance with this rule. How will this be accomplished given the June 18, 

2014 cutoff in proposed 40 C.F.R. §60.5750? Sherry

 Please explain the invitation for comment re. treatment of existing state 

programs (79 Fed. Reg. 34830, 34918). Sherry

o Please explain the building block 2 (re-dispatch to NGCC) step of the goal calculation for 

Alaska. Misha/Fisher/Mark
 Alaska has a goal of moving from an average NGCC capacity factor of 43% to 

47%. How was the 47% determined? Mark/Fisher

 29 states have a goal of 70% NGCC capacity factor. What are the reasons for 

applying a different capacity factor goal to Alaska? Mark/Fisher

o Can some element of flexibility be built into the state goals? For example, could the final 

rule allow for modification to the state goals upon a showing that the goal was based 

upon inaccurate information or changing conditions? Currently, EPA states the goals will 

not be amended on any basis after promulgation of the final rule. Proposed Rule, 79 Fed. 

Reg. at 34835 (“One the final goals have been promulgated, a state would no longer have 

an opportunity to request that the EPA adjust its CO2 goals.”) Jim K-C

o How much flexibility does EPA have to consider state-specific circumstances when 

setting state goals? For example, can/does the proposed goal account for transmission 

system limitations in Alaska? How? Misha/Meroney

 State Plans (Chris Sherry)

o We’ve heard reference to “symmetry” between the goal computation and 

implementation via State Plans. Sherry

 What is the “symmetry”? Sherry

 Is there an expectation that the measures in goal computation will largely 

mirror measures established in State Plans (plus add’l measures)? Sherry

o May the state get “credit” for CO2 reductions at EGUs off of the grid – i.e. for the small 

hydro projects replacing diesel – even though those projects do not reduce emissions at 

“affected EGUs”? Do hydro (or other RE) projects need to be tied directly to emission 

reductions at a particular fossil generating unit to be credited to the state’s target rate?

Sherry

o Can hydroelectric or other RE projects smaller than 25MW be credited to the state? 

Sherry/Clouse

o How frequently is 40 CFR § 60.24 used to vary State Plans from what otherwise might be 

required by federal regulations? What is the state’s burden of proof? How does it work 

as a practical matter? Sherry