UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE C TION AGENCY WAS H I N GTO N , D . C . 20 4 60

OFFICE OF A I R AND RADIATION 

### MEMORANDUM Subject: From: To: Summary of Stake holder Meeting s Ca ri ssa Cy ran D ockets EPA -H Q-OAR-20 1 3
- 0602, EPA-HQ -O AR-2013-0603, and EPA- H QOAR-20 13
- 0495 This memorandum summarizes meetings with stakeholders during the week of February 16. 20 1 5. On February 18. Ac tin g Assistant Adminis trat or for Air a n d Radiation Janet McCabe and Associate Assistant Adm ini s trato r for Cli mat e and Senior Co un se l for Ai r a nd R adiat ion J osep h Goffm a n met w ith William Bump e r s of Baker Bo tt s L.L.P. On February 19, Act in g Ass i sta nt Administrator for Air and R ad ia ti o n J ane t Mc Cabe and Assoc ia te Ass i s tant Admin i s tr a t o r for C limate and Senior Cou n se l for 

### A ir a nd Radi at ion J ose ph G offman met with represe nt atives from Advanced Energy Economy. Sign-in sheet attached. On February 20, Associate Assistant Ad mini s trato r for C limate and Sen io r Co un se l for A ir and Radiation J oseph Goffman met with representatives f rom ational C lim a t e Coalition industry group. Sig n-in s he et a nd hand o ut s arc attac hed. On F eb rua ry 20. Acting Assistant Administrat or for A ir and Radiation Janet McCabe and Associate Assistant Admin i s trator for C lim ate a nd Se ni o r Cou n sel fo r A ir a nd R adiat ion Joseph Goffman m et w ith representatives from National Reso urce Def e n se Council. S ig n-in s h eet attached. On f-ebruary 20, Associate Ass i s tant Admin i s tra to r for C limate a nd Se nior Co un se l fo r Ai r a nd Radiation Joseph Goffman met wi th representatives from fo rest C limat e Working Group. Sign
in s h eet attached. On February 20, Administr ato r G in a McCarthy s poke wi th Jim Robo ofNcxtEr a.

Interne t A dd ress (UR L J • h rt p //www epa gov R ecyc l cd i Re cyclable • Pnnted "'''h Vegetable 0•1 Based Inks on 100' Postconsumer Process Clllonne Free Recycled Paper

### Date:



# 11 **~leu.;** 

# OLf, cr 

# I ;{]>

**t~** 

# @ 

# :2f r{J Meeting:



# Ad~ aJl 

# cf o/ B'ttjy :ff::A.Vl



# ~ !4-' 

# ( l<-f

# Jdb i ( 

# "J SJ-ful d Rule(s)Discussed:



# ll~) **. -~-]**  Written Materials? Y



# ~ Name Organization Phone Number 

# 0n



## ~wtl 

# c;;q- 4 23-ZJSCJ7 

# ZO'- 

# -81-o-B?B i

f;;P4

# Ef'A

# f (JT {

### Date : February 20 , 2014 Meeting: NCC Meeting Rule(s) Discussed: 

## (I/ ( 

# j) Written

### Materials?**o** Name Organization Phone N umb e r

## ~2-7

___... 

# tJ L 

# !J f) 

# !f3 {t;/-- ZJJ2 

# sb . 202 IIFe bruary 20, 20 15 N CC Di sc u ss io n D oc um e nt Qu es tion s r eg ardin g Poss i bl e F IP D es i g n I . On w h o m w ill th e FrP place th e e mi ss i o n redu c ti o n bur d e n - th e s ta te o r t h e EGU ? 2. I f o n th e EGU , w h a t w ill b e th e r e quired l eve l of e mi ss i o n s r e ducti o n s - th e e ntire s tat e r es p o n s ib ility o r o nl y tho se re du ct i ons within th e co ntro l o f t he EGU ? 3. If it i s the fu ll s tat e red uctio n r e qui re m e nt , then by w h at m ea n s wi ll the EGU comply? 4. If th e E G U i s ex p ec te d to co mpl y b y indirect ly access in g o ut s id e- th e- fe n ce lin e e mi ss i o n redu c ti o n o pp o rtuniti es (e . g., Buildin g Bl oc k s 2-4 ), then h ow wi l l th e FIP e n s ure s u c h acc ess? 5. I f an e mi ss i o n r e du c ti o n c r edit (E RC ) sys t e m , th e n w ill it b e proj ec t- o r sys te m - ba se d ? 6. In e ith e r case, w ill ERC s be gene rated b e fore - o r af ter - th e- fa ct? 7. Wh e th er pr ojec t -s pe c ifi c o r sys tem-wid e, wo uld E RC s b e ge ne r ated by r e f

e r

e nce to a s tat e's i nd i v idual Buil di ng Bl oc k ben c hm a rks o r to na ti o nall y-u ni fo rm b e nc hmark s? 8. I f B SE R i s based on th e es timat e d leve l o f em i ss i o n redu c tion s ava ilable across the s t ates, th e n mu s t no t the FlP req uire ERCs to b e ge nera te d wh e n eve r a s t ate o u tpe rf o rm s expec te d carbon inten s it y benchmark s (e ith e r o n a BE -s p ec ifi c ba s i s o r sys te m - wid e)? Otherwi s e , if so m e ERCs are no t ge n e rate d and made avai l ab le for EGU access, h ow c an th e full level o f a nti ci pate d e mi ss i o n r educ tion s b e r eq uire d ? 9 . Will the ER C program be nati o nal or s ta te in scope? I f s ta te-s p ec ifi c. th e n h ow c an E P A ass ure adeq uat e E RC s uppl y? Mu st it n o t b e i nt e r s ta te in sco pe to e n s ur e adeq uat e s up ply? I 0. H ow w ill th e FrP allo ca te e mi ss ion r ed uc ti o n burdens amo n g indi vidua l EGU s? What wou ld be th e bas i s f o r diffe r e nt iati ng am o ng othe r w i se-s imi lar EGU s if th e e mi ss i o n r ed uc ti o n burd e n were p l aced o n the EGU in s tead o f th e s tat e? I s th e r e a bas i s f o r EPA to u se differe nti a l sta te perf o rm ance b e nc hmark s fo r ge ne r atin g ER Cs but uniform perf o rman ce ex pectat i o n s of si mil a rl y- s itu a te d EGUs? II. Assu min g that EGU s w ill be ab le to pur c hase ERC s from a n y s tat e, h ow wi ll EPA d e te r mine whi c h e nti ty o r s tat e i s e nti t le d to r ece i ve th e fund s? Wi ll E R C ge neration c r

ed it be ba sed o n fundi n g (e . g., inv es to r , ratepa ye r , taxpa ye r) or loc u s?

### February 20. 2015 National Climate Coalition Discu ss ion Draft 

### E P A lll(d) FIP Iss ues
KEY ELEMENTS OF THE NCC ' S PREVIOUS I 

### ltD COMMENTS 

### A Source-Based Program with Sys te m Flexibility in the First In s tanc e In it s previous design reco mm endatio ns, 1 

### the Natio na l C l imate Coa liti on (''NCC .. ) s up ported a so urce- based " bes t syste m of e mi ss i o n r ed ucti o n " (BSE R ) co mbin ed w ith vo luntar y s t ate program s for inco rp o r at in g syste m -w id e ac ti v iti es that avoid or reduce ad diti o na l e mi ss i o n s. EPA's sys tem-wide appr o ach in th e C l ean Power Pl an is legall y risky because th e C l ean Air Ac t does not autho r ize EP A to req uire a so ur ce to r ed uce e mi ss ions by mea ns o ut s id e of it s co ntro l. An 

### imm e diate sys te m- w id e ap pr oac h is a l so ri s k y from an e nergy p o li cy pers p ect i ve because the nec essar y regulatory and mark et mechani s ms are no t yet in place to enab l e s tate s t o ac hi eve sys tem-w i de ( i.e., o ut s id e-t he-fe nce li ne) reduction s w ith o ut se riou s eco no mi c, re li abi li ty and o th er im p li cat i o ns. 

### A More Robust Energy System Program When the Necessary Regulat01y Infrastructure is in Pla ce T he NCC design r eco mm e ndati ons co nt e mpl ate that EPA, wo rkin g co llabo rati vely w ith the states, co uld build th e necessary r eg ul at o r y a nd mark et tool s t o achiev e g r eate r , o ut s id e-thefe n ce line reducti o ns, but thi s will tak e time and w ill req ui re s i g nifi cant reg i o nal coor din a ti o n, adva nce planni n g and furth er E P A determ ina ti ons regard ing the feasibi li ty, scale and cost of s uch r ed ucti o ns, a mon g o th er co ns i de r ation s . 

### I

nterim Milestones Set by States As n oted in th e NCC Dece mb e r I , 2 01 4 co mm e n ts a nd as sec ti o n 110 of th e C l ea n A ir Act provides for s t ate pl ans (e.g . . S IP s). EP A s hould d efer to th e s tates to se t th e i

r ow n inte r im pr

ogress mil esto nes for ac h ieving the 2030 carb o n int e ns it y p erf o rm ance targe t s tak in g into account appropri ate stat e a nd r eg i o nal co nside ratio ns.

See 

### Nat i o na I C lim at e Coali tion Program Des i g n Reco mm e ndati o n s. February 4, 2014 and prev i o u s s u bmittals.

### FIP OPT I ONS EPA recently a nn oun ced its inte ntion to p ro mul ga t e a federal imple m e nta ti on plan (F IP

) in the event tha t s tat es are un ab le or unwilling to s ubmit a co mpl y ing plan on tim e. A FIP co uld tak e on e of two approaches. It cou ld re t ain th e obligation on th e s t ate. as the CPP propo ses. or it co uld place the resp onsibilit y e ntir e l

y on the so urce. Each of th ese approaches is consider ed be low. 

### I. THE NCC PREFERS A STATE PORTFOLIO APPROACH WITH A FIP BACKSTOP THAT I S NARROWLY TAILORED TO THE SPECIFI C SHORTCOMING A ss uming that EPA finali zes a sys te m-b a s ed B SER (i.e. , es tabli s hing em iss i o n r e duction s ba se d o n what th e e ntir e ene rgy syste m, no t just sou rc es , ca n achi eve), then the NCC beli eves that a FIP that pr eserve s a s tate ' s p o rtf o li o o pti o ns wo uld be pr e ferable to a so urc e- based approach. o 

### Under thi s approach , as in EPA ' s propo se d C PP , th e F IP would identif y eac h s tate 's fina l ( i.e., 2030) carbon inten s ity perf o rmanc e goal. Th e FIP would includ e o ne o r more model rul es pro vid ing sta t e fle xi bilit y t o meet th at target us in g an y of a numb er o f ener gy sys tem s trat eg ies , in c ludin g measur es describ e d in Building Bl oc ks ( BB ) 2-4. o T o sa ti s f y fed eral enf o rce ab ili ty ob li gat i ons and a s a s imple FIP back s to p to s tat e po rtf o li o commitment s that would be narrow l y tail ored t o th e s pecific s ho rtco ming . th e plan co uld include a targ eted ca rb o n fee a s a back st o p if th e s tate did not m ee t th e r e ducti o n targ et. The f ee co uld be imp ose d at th e state o r se rvic e territ ory le ve l for an y underperf o rman ce and wo uld r e main in p lace until the s tat e o r se rv i ce te rrit ory m et the r equired ca rbon int e nsity pe rformance l eve l. R

evenues wou ld be co ll ected by the s tate and app li e d to stat e effo rt s to redu ce ca rb o n inten s it y or r et urn e d to r atepaye rs o r in vestors, as appr o priate. 

### ll. NCC R ECOMMENDAT IO NS IF THE FIP PLACES RESPONSrBILITY ON THE SOURCE If th e FIP place s th e e mi ss i o n redu c tion r es p o ns ibility o n th e indi v idual so urce ( i.e. , EGU) in s tead o f th e state , 2 

### th e n ce rtain co ns ider ati o ns mu st be t ak e n in to account. Gi ve n that indi v idual EG Us hav e no co ntro l ove r out s id e-the- f e ncel in e. e ne r gy-sys te m emi ss i on W

e und e rs tand that th e co nt emp lat ed FI P approac h would es se ntially e mbed with in a n indi v idual EGU's o pe r ati ng limit th e full emi ss i o n red uc ti o n r espo ns ibility ( i.e., BB s 1-4) of the s t ate in w hi c h th e EGU o perate s, ex pre sse d a s ca rb o n int e n s ity, much as EP A would if it use d the · ' alt ernat i ve BSER " appr o ac h di sc usse d in th e C PP prop osa l. Sig nifi ca nt qu es ti o n s exis t regardin g th e meth odo l ogy by which the s tate 's e mi ssio n redu ctio n burd e n wou ld be all ocated a m o n g EGUs . 23

4 re duction op p o rtuniti es, 3 EPA mu s t d eve l o p a r ob u s t int e r s tate e mi ss i o n re ducti o n c re dit (E RC) program4 to connect the EGUs with t h e b roa d er e n e rgy sys tem a nd pr ov id e th e m w ith an ass ured compliance o pti on at reaso n ab l e cos t. E RCs wo uld in the o r y be ge n erated by a state's ove r-p erfo rm a n ce throug h s urplu s red u c ti o n s fro m BB s 2-4 and o ther ou t s id e -th efence lin e. e n e rgy-syst em reduc t ions not othe rw ise acce ss ibl e to indi v idu a l so urces. There are severa l c ritical c h arac t e ri s tic s th at an int e rs t a te E RC pr og ram mu s t ha ve to s ucceed: 

## •


## •

• 

## •

• Estab lish ed by EPA - Th e interstate E RC prog ram mu s t b e es tabli s hed by E PA as s tat es may n ot be ab l e n or willi n g t o devel o p the pr og ram and sources w ill nee d unrestricted access to ERCs for co mpli ance. Automatic Reg istration in a Nati ona l Data Base- E PA s h o uld d e t e rmin e th e net available s urplu s emi ss ion re duction s res ultin g from eac h s tate 's m ost rece nt a nnu a l (o r oth er pe r iod of) p e r fo rman ce in eac h of th e s tat e's service t e rritorie s. E P A would register these reduc ti o n s in a n a tion al E RC d ata ba se reflec ti ng the ava ilabl e multi state p oo l of ava il a ble ERCs. Imm e diate E RC Ava il ab ili ty- Once E PA registe r s th e ge n e ra ti o n of su rplu s E RCs, t h ose c re dit s wou ld be ava il a bl e t o EGUs thr o u g h an a u ct i o n o r by o th e r m ea n s . ERC Revenues Returned to the States and Inv estors - funds ge n e rated thr o u g h EGU ER C purcha ses wou l d be re turned to the s t a te w hose c arb o n inte n s it y perf o rm a nce gen erated the c r ed it s. s ubject to the Di s put e Reso luti o n pro cess addre sse d b e l ow . E PA wi ll n ee d to wo rk wit h the s t ates t o d eve lo p th e ground rul es n ecessa ry to ass ure that fund s ultim a t e l y are re turn ed to the r atepaye rs, in ves t o rs o r tax p ayers w h o financ e d th e m easu r es that direct l y o r i nd irectly ge n e rat ed the ER Cs . No E R C Withholdin g- B ecause E PA's B SER determination assu m es widesp r ea d ava il a bility of a ll emi ss io n red u c ti o n s, s tat es s h o uld n ot be a ll o wed to w ithh o ld th ei r s urplu s redu c ti o ns fr o m the int e r state E RC m arket.
The NCC is active l y co n si d e r ing whet her and und er w h at circu m stances EPA could place the e mi ss i o n r e ducti on respon s ibilit y on l oad-se rvin g e ntitie s ( LSEs) in stead of th e EGU o r w h e th e r s ta t es s h o uld b e give n th e o pti o n , u nder th e FIP , to tran s f e r the ob li gati o n to LSE s. I n some c ir cumstances. LSE s ma y have su p e ri or access to ene rgy sys t e m o pp o rtuniti es, parti cu larl y in BBs 3 and 4 . As there ar e s i g nifi ca nt di fference s a m o n g LSE s ac r oss th e U nit ed Sta tes, howeve r, thi s iss ue is not s tra i g ht fo r ward a n d re quires car eful eva lu atio n . The NCC conceptu a ll y su pp o rt s t h e a lt e rn a ti ve approac h of u s in g a nat i o nal o r multi s tate allowance-based a ppr oach in s t ead of a rate-ba sed ERC approac h , under appro priat e co nditi o n s, but und e r s tand s that s u ch an appr oac h is n o t c urre ntl y und e r co n s ideration.
35 • Seq uencin g- Co mplian ce ob li ga ti o n s would be timed so that the E RC credit po o l is in place and adequate l y s upplied (see be low) b efo re c o mpliance o bli ga ti o n s co mm ence. Int e rim s t andards that a ll ow a grad ual g lid e-pa th wou ld increa se o pp o rtunities f o r s tates to generate E RC credi t thr o ugh ove r-p e rf or m a n ce in th e early yea r s/ h e lpin g t o build th e c r e dit po o l. • Minimum ERC Balance and AC P
- The progr a m mu s t provide fo r a min i mum nati o n a l ERC balan ce to ensure a n adequat e s uppl y o f E RC s t o m ee t ant icipated EGU d e m a nd at re a so n ab l e cost. Giv e n s ignific a nt uncertaintie s reg a rdin g the p o t e nti a l s up p l y o f ERCs, th e program must b e backstopped by an alternative co mpliance payment (ACP) o pti on o r o th e r reaso nabl y-p ri ced safe t y va lve if it is to avoid imp e rmi ssib l e burdens o n indi v idual EGUs o r reg ulated s tat es. o ACP
- given th a t it wi ll take so m e tim e to a ss ure a n adequate s uppl y ofE RCs in th e inters t a te c re dit reg is t ry/ p oo l, E PA s h o uld es t ab li s h a ce ilin g-price alternative co mplianc e pay m e nt o pti o n (e.g., sa f e t y va l ve ) a s we h ave previou s l y reco mmend e d . S tat es wou ld apply co ll ecte d fund s f o r in ves tm ent in ene rg y sys t em GHG red u c tions. • Qualified ERC Purchasers Only
- To e n s ur e adequate E RC s uppl y , o nl y r eg ulated ent iti es (e i ther EGU s o r uti li tie s/ L SEs, or s tate s i f th e burden is placed at a s tat e l eve l) \ ou ld be able to purchase E RCs. • Parallel to Independ ent Stat e Programs
- C r eat io n o f a n in ter s t a te ER C m ar k e t wo uld n o t int e rf ere w ith se p arate s tate o r r egio nal G HG tradin g pro g ram s, w hi c h wo uld ope rat e ind ependen t ofth e FIP program (i.e., as parallel b u t ind epe nd e nt p rogra m s). E RCs ge n e rated by s tat es no t s ubject to th e Fl P as s urplu s t o the state's a pplicabl e Ill d carbon int e nsit y ba se li ne s w o uld s t ill b e registe r e d in the n ati o na l E RC c r e dit po o l and mad e avai lable t o EGU s o r LSEs (or s tates) as n ee d ed f o r co mplian ce. • Di s pute R eso luti o n and Appeal Pro cess - E PA s h o u ld iss ue g uid e lin es c la r ify i ng E RC ow n e r s hip a m ong p o t e ntiall y co mp e tin g public and private in ves to rs and s tat es. EPA a l so s h ou ld esta bli s h an ap p ea l procedu r e to reso lve any di sp ut es r e late d to E RC gene r a ti o n dete r minati o n s. Un l eas hin g capit a l w ill require c l ear E RC owne r s hip rul es a nd a fa ir a nd efficien t di s put e ad judicati o n process . 

### Potential Adva nta ges o fthis Approac h : • Minimizes Intru s ion into E n ergy Planning
- Thi s app roach c re at es an o ngo in g in centive for state and regi o n al act i o n but doe s n o t int e rf e re wit h s tate and reg i o n a l e n e r gy p la nnin g. Oth er th a n data s harin g , the Fl P wou ld n o t imp ose indepe nd e nt E RCs wou ld be ge n e r a t e d b y r efe re n ce t o th e c arb o n int e n s i ty ba se lin es app li ca b l e t o eac h p e ri od fo r each s tate.
4fede r a l p la nnin g burdens ot h e r t h an those r elated t o au t o mati c E RC ge n e r atio n and f und di stribu t ion. 

### • Rewards Ear ly Act ion
- Sta t es t h at beat their carbon in ten s i ty targets w ill automatically gene r ate ERCs and receive fund s from ERC purc h ases , potentially rewarding ratepaye r s, in vestors and taxpaye r s in s u c h states. Acco rdin g ly, suc h a d es ign wou l d p rov id e a n ince n tive for ot h er s tates to move quick ly to lower ene rgy syste m carb o n intensity , gene ra t e t h e i r own ERCs and capture ERC payments. 

### • E n co ura ges Interstate Coo rdina t ion
- The app roach offers a way for states to ha r mo n ize t h eir actio n s. 

### • M inimiz es Resource Burden s on Indi vid u a l States
- FIP S tat es could focus their r esou rces on th e ir own ene rgy p lanni n g w hil e using the F l P ap proach to meet fede ra l requirement s. 

### • Cost M inimization
- by deve l opi n g a natio n a l ERC poo l, th e app roac h wo uld avoid the potent i a l for com pli ance costs to be determ ined b y r egiona l o r l oca l facto rs (e.g. , gas s uppl y , renewable in vest me nt , weat he r o r other constra int s). The n ationa l sca le of the E R C poo l toget he r wit h t h e ce ilin g -pri ce ACP m echa ni s m wou ld provide des irable cost un i for mi ty , stab ility a nd m i t igat i on benefit s. 

### • E nsures Adequate Co mpli ance Options for Regulated So urces - the in te r state E RC poo l and AC P wo uld ens ure that EGUs have s uffi c ie nt comp li ance opt io n s to m eet th e ir F I P ob li gations . 

### • Esta blishes Price Sig n a l for Lo n g-Term Cap ita l Deployment
- E RC tran sactio n s w ill pr ov id e a p rice s igna l t h at w ill help pri vate capital and so ur ces make lo n g-term capita l deployme n t deci s i ons. In so me cases, ad diti o n a l reve nu e strea m s from ERC c r eation a n d sa le wi ll make certa in deve l opme nt o pp o rtun it ies fi n a n cia ll y p oss ib le . 

### Because this draft discussion document is an integra tedpackage of recommendations that reconciles often conflicting individual co mpan y or association perspectives. no particular posi t ion should be attributed to any individual National Climat e Coa lition member. The Coa lition offers th ese comments recogniz ing that EPA will receive a variety of co mm ents from other s takeho ld e r

s. We look forward to co n tinued dialogue with all s tak eho ld ers and CO IIIlnit to g ive seriou s consideration to a nd t o co mmen t upon constru c tiv e id eas offered by o th e rs . Coa lition positions may evo lv e over tim e in respo n se to such ideas or following further ongo in g analysis. 

### Contacts Bob Wyman Stacey Va nB elleg h em (213) 891-8346 (202) 637-2 1 53



### 5 r ober1 . \\ vman @ l w.com stacey. vanbel leghern r@ lw.com

# The National Climate Coalition
The National Climate Coalition IS a mu ltHndustry coalition that was formed 1n 2008 to proVIde input to EPA regard1ng GHG regulation under the Clean A1r Act and whose members have 1ncluded compames 1n the aerospace and electtomcs. automotive. cement. consumer products. electricity generation. manufactunng. 011 refining and renewable energy sectors .

we are the energy

An F. DISON IN'J'ERNATIONAL' Company American Public Power Association

# ~BEING I 

# --

I I 

# - -. ... 

# . I I 

# nrg ,M 0 CALPINE e 

# 3NI ...... (NYSE @ij · ¢1

# LSPower**~** Group
NCC CONTACTS Bob Wyman (213) 891-8346 ROBERT.WYMAN @ LW.CDM StaceyVanBe ll eghem (202] 637-2153 STACEYVANBELLEGHEM @ LW . a:JM 

# LATH AM & WAT KIN S LLP

### Date:



# ~J **~** 02.{-<P} .u/1 

# S td; 

# I ·15prn Meeting:



# L~ f\) 

## RJ) (/ Rule(s)Discussed: 

# (k

**~ {J~**  PL6.f) Written 

### Materials?



# ~ Name Organization Phone Number

### D a t e: F ebruary 20 , 2014 M e etin g : 

### F C W G Discu ss ion on lll(d) Rulc(s) Discussed: \\\



# ~ 

# o.,) Written M aterials?



## Yes **~** Name Orga n iz a ti on 

# I Phone Number 

# I tww f l ea (\ tzv't.K-f 

## i-11 

# L rv-!,11 1 J ::n2 - ::w



# .~- AV l1-,.. I 

# Nldt'SS(L

**Moe_l ~f**  TP..,>



## ~ ..


## ~~~

**-.J_ 2Jff~**  **--lill~':l'\f**

**t\** 

# fJ. \, 

# wz.- - ){J 

# J- 7 

# r..r1- 

# f f"\h 

## -v-.) l U-J 

### Nv\.S



# ~ j **~-r·iO**



### "W\t..U~SN 

# LAW+ ?auc. lA 

### 'UJ z_ - 1-Sl.t -

**~ L~S'**  1 -l



# \~0J **~~**

**~A-** 

## Z9'-
- ?Cf 1 . 

## 9 6 71 

# r-:--'r; : [ 

# l l 

# '"I /t



# ~ **(?"('>~\** I 

# 9CC[- 3"-(S'



# ~ll **G-uM~** (f 

# rl-AI 

# ?7?- )13-(

**R~ {kv~**  

# l=fA- 

# 3 

# L/]-

**f7L ~**  

# I

' 

# I



# ~

--

I

'-·