Meeting with the Board of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy

July 9, 2014

Questions from Participants (Q)/Key Points Discussed (KP)

Key Comments

 Noted BCSE work with Bloomberg Energy Finance to produce annual report on U.S. clean energy 

usage and penetration. Provides a snapshot of the industry – may not be covered adequately in 

other analysis.

 Important for BCSE member organizations and companies to hear from senior EPA and 

Administration policy makers – gives them confidence to speak in favor of clean energy and the rule.

 EPA may have undercounted renewable energy’s (RE) contribution – RE could provide a bigger share 

of reductions (from AWEA).

Q: Who (i.e., which audiences) are you trying to explain the rule to? (PIMA)

KP: Suggestion that EPA provide materials for use in communicating with CEOs, corporate 

sustainability officers, and town council members. Important to reach local level and specific segments 

such as the NACO engineers who would be involved in facilities management and technical analysis.

Q: What about the treatment of hydropower? (Scott Sklar, Stella Group)

KP: EPA should be open to allowing for upgrades at existing, older dams that increase their 

efficiency.

Q: How do you respond to apparent confusion on the timing of crediting actions – there is 

potential for delaying actions in order to receive credit later? (Johnson Controls)

KP: JM encouraged good comments so EPA doesn’t create disincentives to action and promote 

delay.

Q: Could a state wait until one year or a few years before 2030 to start compliance measures? 

(Follow-up)

KP: Appreciated JM’s explanation that while “we would have to look at the math,” it’s unlikely that a 

state could put off action until that close to the end.

Q: Will EPA put out guidance on EM&V? (Johnson Controls)

KP: More examples of how to do EM&V will be useful to states. One area is building codes, 

especially down to the local level (also an education and enforcement issue).

Q: If a utility (e.g., in CA) has a Power Purchase Agreement with an RE generator in another state, 

do the emissions reductions count in CA? What about fossil generation? (Sempra Energy)
KP: Agreed with EPA that the reductions from the RE generator should count for the receiving state 

(following the RECs) but need to work with facilities to avoid doublecounting. Makes sense that the 

fossil generation counts against the state in which it’s located.

Q: On natural gas issues, in Building Block #2, were the gas infrastructure and marketplace taken into 

account to develop the percentage for gas capacity? Doesn’t seem clear. (BCSE President and AGA)

KP: Discussion addressed question about EPA’s approach and what was taken into account in both the 

analysis and design of the proposed rule.

Q: What is meant by “federally enforceable” for measures included in Building Block #4? (AGA)

KP: Appreciated JM’s explanation about the option for states to take a “portfolio approach” and share 

responsibility (so not enforceable for individual actions but for a set of actions). Welcomed invitation to 

provide assistance with legal and policy dimensions.

Q: Do “problems” (e.g., with being federally enforceable) dissipate with a mass-based approach? 

(EnerNOC)

KP: Appreciated JM’s response that a mass-based approach could simplify a state’s approach (e.g., 

regarding EM&V and enforceability on specific measures) but states still have the responsibility to lay 

out a compliance path and comply with it.