From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:44 PM
To: Wayland, Robertj Subject: RE: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney

Hi Bob,

That language is from the latest draft preamble -- the percentages were omitted in our prior draft :

The EPA anticipates significant emission r eductions under the proposed guidelines. CO2 emissions are projected to be reduced, relative to 2005 emissions, by 26 percent to 27 percent in 2020 and about 30 percent in 2030 under Option 1. Option 2 reflects reductions of about 23 percent in 2020 and 22 percent to 23 percent in 2030.

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:38 PM
To: Higgins, Cortney Subject: FW: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney

Here’s Misha’s response ... looks like you should just ignore that last row. If you need more, just let me know and I will get it tracked down and back to you.

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt *************************************From: Adamantiades, Mikhail
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:36 PM
To: Wayland, Robertj; Culligan, Kevin; Stenhouse, Jeb
Cc: Chappell, Linda Subject: RE: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney

The last row is pretty old and we no longer refer to it since there is no such national goal, although the reductions to fall in line with what we have modeled. For reductions, we should point her to the RIA, since that is what the world will see. All the other blocks look accurate to me.

From: Wayland, Robertj
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:31 PM
To: Culligan, Kevin; Stenhouse, Jeb
Cc: Chappell, Linda; Adamantiades, Mikhail Subject: Quick Turnaround Request from Cortney Importance: High

Is this table still factually correct – particularly the reductions since 2005. Cortney is using this in a briefing for her Administrator later this evening and would like to use this table. Can we confirm the percentages are correct ... and get back to her by 3:50/4:00 pm today if at all possible?

thanx!

bob

Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. Leader, Energy Strategies Group U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Sector Policies and Programs Division Mail Code D243-01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 Office: (919) 541-1045 Cell: (919) 306-2290 Fax: (919) 541-5450

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov

************************************* DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt *************************************From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 3:24 PM
To: Wayland, Robertj Subject:



## Technology/Building Block Option 1 Option 2

1. Heat rate improvement (Avg. Reduction for Coal) 6% 4%

2. Dispatch to existing and under-construction NGCC Utilization of NGCC up to 70% capacity factor Utilization of NGCC up to 65% capacity factor

3. Dispatch to new clean electric generation Includes new nuclear generation under construction, moderate deployment of new renewable generation, and continued use of existing nuclear generation

4. Demand-side Energy Efficiency (% reduction in demand from BAU MWh sales) 

## 3.0% / 10.7% (2020 / 2030) 2.4% / 5.2% (2020 / 2025)

Goal Option 1 Option 2

Average nationwide goal for covered sources (lbs/MWh) 26% to 27% below 2005 levels in 2020 23% below 2005 levels in 2020