EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 1

EPA

Moderator: Scott Fraser

October 29, 2014

3:00 p.m. ET

Operator: Good afternoon. My name is (Brandy) and I will be your conference operator 

today. At this time I would like to welcome everyone to the Clean Power Plan 

Notice of Data Availability conference call.

All lines have been placed on mute to prevent any background noise. After 

the speakers’ remarks there will be a question-and-answer session. If you 

would like to ask a question during this time simply press star then the number 

one on your telephone keypad. To withdraw your question press the pound 

key. Thank you.

Mr. Scott Fraser, you may begin your conference.

Scott Fraser: Thank you (Brandy). Thank you everybody else for joining today. Yesterday, 

EPA issued two actions related to the proposed Clean Power Plan to cut 

carbon solutions from power plants and this today’s conversation here is about 

the additional information and ideas available for public comment in a Notice 

of Data Availability or (NODA), if you love acronyms as much as we do.

My name is Scott Fraser. I’m with the EPA’s Office of Public Engagement. 

I’m going to introduce Janet McCabe, our Acting Assistant Administrator for 

EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation. She’s going to give a five minute intro on 

today’s topic and then we’re going to turn it over to our two presenters. Kevin 

Culligan is the Associate Division Director within the Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards and Reid Harvey who is Director of the Clean Air 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 2

Markets Division and their presentation will take about 15 minutes and you 

heard the operator say we’ll have some time for question and answer.

If you didn’t get time to ask your question I want to give you an e-mail to 

follow up and that’s publicengagement@epa.gov. With that I’m going to turn 

it over to Janet.

Janet McCabe: OK. Thanks Scott. Thanks everybody for joining us. This is our second call 

of the day about (inaudible) call we had at noon today which about the other 

action we (inaudible) yesterday which was our supplemental proposals on 

(inaudible) territories. And for those of you that joined us on that call, you 

know, (inaudible). Hopefully, we got a good (inaudible) here and looking 

forward to getting some more information and then hearing your questions.

Since last year EPA has been following through on President Obama’s 

directive to extensively engage with the broader possible (lengths) and 

perspectives as we work to develop a plan to cut energy waste, spend in the 

economy and leverage cleaner energy sources.

Today we want to provide you with more details about the NODA that we 

issued yesterday and I want to emphasize that NODA is a routine for the 

document that the agency, you know, can issue in the (inaudible) to make sure 

that information is broadly available to all stakeholders. We believe that 

public included one of the most important parts that (we’re making process) 

and the more we listen and engage the more perspectives we hear, the better 

the clean power plan and all of our work will be.

At every stage of this process if you don’t have prioritize I reach to the public, 

state, tribes, industries, non-government organizations later in community

groups, the many meetings conference calls, public hearing and nearly 1.5 

million public comments that the agency has already received to identify a 

wide range of ideas and information. Our actions yesterday (looks like) what 

we heard and we benefited greatly from the high level of interest and 

engagement and this is exactly how the role making process is intended to 

work.
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 3

(Inaudible) show that we are listening and that we are committed to 

continuing the dialogue. Let me fill you in on a few of the details before 

turning it over. EPA and other federal agencies regularly and routinely used 

NODAs to provide the public with an opportunity to consider and comment 

on ideas raised about our ongoing role making or other important 

environmental protection program. EPA has heard a wide range of ideas and 

issues from states, stakeholders in the public about the proposed clean power 

plant to cut carbon solution and (cyclonic) change. The NODA continues this 

important dialog.

This NODA does not change the proposal and I want to emphasize that. 

We’ve discussed some key ideas we used to hearing consistently from a 

diverse set of stakeholders and the NODA gives us the chance to ensure that 

all stakeholders and the public are aware of these issues and can consider 

them in their comments. As you may know we’ve been hearing about the 

proposed approach to the building blocks, goal setting and compliance.

This notice is not intended to be a summary of all the issues that have been 

raised but rather it points out ideas that stakeholders have raised about 

potential ways to address some of those issues, ideas that we want to make 

sure everyone who is interested in its rule has an opportunity to think about 

and comment on, specially ideas that weren’t already in the June proposal. 

Specifically the NODA discusses issues raised by stakeholders about 

trajectory or glide path of emission reductions from 2020 to 2029.

Aspects of the ways of building blocks are established and certain aspects of 

the way the stake goals are calculated. Reid Harvey and Kevin Culligan are 

going to walk you through more specifics about the NODA and those 

individual issues. Let me just quickly mention in case you (inaudible) on 

earlier quickly the supplemental proposal that we issued yesterday as well. 

The supplemental proposal addresses carbon pollution in Indian country and 

U.S. territories and when we proposed the clean power plant back in June we 

know that that we will be doing this supplemental later this year.

Like the clean power plant proposal for states, the supplemental proposal set 

areas specific goals for Indian country and for territories and provide options 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 4

for meeting those goals in a flexible manner that accommodates a diverse set 

of approaches. For Indian country EPA is proposing goals for four effected 

power plants, the Navajo Generating Station and the four corners power plants 

within the Navajo nation, the Bonanza Power Plant located in the new tribe of 

Uintah and area reservation and the Fort Mojave Tribe’s South Point Energy

Center.

The supplemental proposal also addresses six effective sources in Puerto Rico 

and two in Guam. EPA will accept comment on the supplemental proposal 

until December 19th and will hold a public hearing on November 19th in 

Phoenix, Arizona. We began our work on the clean power plant by listening 

and we will continue to listen. As I said earlier for most of the agency’s work 

supplemental proposals and notices of data availability are fairly routine and 

often pass without a mention.

With respect to the clean power plan we know the extended interest among 

the stakeholders and we thought that it was important to have these 

opportunities to talk to you about these things specifically. These are 

important tools that EPA can use to make sure that we’re getting it right which 

is exactly why our engagement process is so important. We’re confident that 

the end results will be a final clean power plants that will help 

accomplishment the president’s goals to cut harmful carbon solution which is 

chilling climate change to build a resilient nation to deal with impacts today 

and in the future and to lead the world in our global climate fight.

And to do so in a way that strengths the economy creates new jobs and allows 

us all to invest in our communities. Climate actions (inaudible) innovation, 

encourages investment global industry and creates jobs and a strong world 

leading economy depends on a healthy environment and a stable climate who 

can’t have one without the other but open inclusive and transparent and 

extensive public involvement is critical to developing programs like this and 

that’s what we’re all about here. We very much look forward to your 

questions and your thoughts on this additional information that we’ve made 

available. And with that I will turn it over to Kevin and Reid to go into more 

detail about the NODA. Thanks Scott.
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 5

Kevin Culligan: Thank you very much Janet and this is Kevin Culligan and I’m going to walk 

through two of the issues that we discussed in the NODA. The first of those 

issues is as Janet mentioned the Glide Path. This is the Glide Path between 

2020 and 2029 and hopefully as you recall from the proposal, in the proposal 

we set in interim target that must be met on average between 2020 and 2029 

and then a final target was to be met in 2030 and that we believe that one of 

the really important flexibilities of the original proposal is that there was 

timing flexibility during that 2020 to 2029 to achieve reductions over the full 

time period so that some of the actions that occur earlier in the 2020 to 2029 

time period while some of them could occur later.

One thing, a number of commenter have suggested is that particularly in states 

where the building blocks result in a great amount of reductions occurring in 

the interim targets, that maybe there isn’t quite that much flexibility and that it 

would require choices to meet very early and potentially limit the choices that 

the states and/or sources might have and the stakeholders who suggested this 

suggested at least two mechanisms that could be used to address the concern 

that they identified.

The first of those mechanisms was that if it there was credit given for early 

reductions, in essence reductions that occurred prior to 2020 and that credit 

could be used in lieu of attaining some of the earlier reductions that could in 

fact provide some more flexibility and in the NODA we do note that 

commenter suggested, we also note that it’s actually is already within the 

scope of (inaudible) proposal that we actually explicitly took a comment on 

this idea and that would certainly would welcome any more comment that 

stake owners have on that idea.

The newer idea that some of the stakeholders should brought up and that we 

are explicitly taking comment on in the NODA itself that we do not explicitly

take a comment on in the original proposal is the idea that we might phase in 

more of the emission reductions between 2020 and 2029. So the original built 

in the original proposal we phased in emission reductions that could occur due 

to renewable and energy efficiency and this was under the assumption that it 

would take time for those for new energy efficiency programs and/or new 

renewal to be put place and/or new renewable to be built.
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 6

We did not have that a similar phase in for either of the emission reductions 

that we assumed could be achieved through the use of efficiency improvement 

and existing plans or as many commenters noted more importantly through 

the movement of generation from higher emitting fossil fuel (third) units to 

existing lower emitting fossil fuel (third) units and typically natural gas 

combine cycle units. Our feeling was and we elaborate in the proposal that 

those units already existed. 

There is no construction needed and therefore that we could pretty quickly 

move to shipping generation to those types of units. Some commenter 

suggested that there are in fact operational challenges associated with that 

economic considerations and considerations related to moving away from 

some of the existing generation moving more to a different form of generation 

and what they’ve suggested as I’ve said is that we could phase in overtime, in 

those two requirements just like we did (EE and RE).

So in this supplemental, notice of data availability we exclusively take a 

comment on that idea. The second topic that I wanted to talk through was 

related to one of -- one of the topic or ways related specifically to the way the 

building block themselves were developed. And the second building block 

focuses primarily on or actually entirely on emission reductions that could be 

achieved by shifting generation from those higher meeting fossil fuel third 

units to lower emitting fossil fuel third units and it was solely focused on 

existing natural gas combined cycle units.

We did take a comments on whether we should consider other uses of natural 

gas, either coal firing, and (existing) coal fire (blowers) and/or the use of new 

natural gas combined cycle units but we did not specifically proposed during 

that or put out methodologies for doing it. One thing a number of commenter 

suggested is that that tends to mean that states that have already invested 

significantly in natural gas infrastructure and natural gas generation end up 

having being asked do more in that building block whereas states that have 

not yet significantly invested in natural gas generation that may have similar 

opportunities to do so are not in fact asked very much.
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 7

So this commenter suggested that it might make sense to look at things that 

could be done in those types of situations like I said that could be new natural 

gas combined cycle units or it could be the use of natural gas coal fire and 

existing coal units. One of the important points we do make and I think that 

commenter should consider as they comment on this issue is how overall the 

use of natural gas in all of the building blocks relate. In the original building 

block to we thought about and use cost and we’re required to under the act in 

setting what we thought was the appropriate amount of shifting to natural gas 

combined cycle that represented the (inaudible) system emission reduction 

reductions.

We think it would be important to consider that holistically and in the 

accumulative amount of natural gas that might be used under all three 

potential strategies for use of natural gas, using more existing natural gas 

combine cycle, building new combined cycle and a coal firing (inaudible). 

With that I’m going to hand it over to Reid to talk about a couple other topics 

there.

Reid Harvey: Thanks Kevin. I’m going to deal with the remaining three topics in the 

NODA dealing with renewables, dealing with the goal setting equation and 

with multi-year data. So first on renewable as you all know in the June 

proposal we identified a proposed approach with the renewal energy

component of state goals that involve examining existing state renewable 

policies and then looking at regional averages to sort of sort that out into state 

goals. We also identified a second option that we requested comment on 

which was look more at the state by state technical and economic potential for 

development of renewable and start comment on that as well.

So in the NODA based on feedback we’ve gotten over the summer since 

released at the June proposal or providing a third option or conceptual 

discussion of the third option that evolves from the first two where we would 

look at in more regionalized approach at the technical and economic potential. 

So rather than looking within each state to be looking more at the renewable 

energy potential available across a multi state region in which each state is 

located. So under that approach we would look across that region and we’re 

asking for feedback about how to -- how to define those regions who will look 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 8

at the extensive which renewable resources were potentially available and 

then our thinking would be that that would might better align the approach.

We’re compliance with the approach for goal setting in the proposal where I 

think for some specific feedback in the NODA related to how we draw those 

regions and then also how we would assign shares if we did this more 

regionalize approach, how we would assign shares back to individual states 

based on the region wide potential and we listed a couple of potential ways 

doing that for example by electricity sales or by electricity generation.

So that’s the third item on our list of (inaudible). The fourth has to do with 

the goal setting equation and you know our, in our June proposal our approach 

for building block two involved reducing existing fossil generation in the 

equation such that one megawatt hours a plant one megawatt hours of existing 

fossil generation and emission but as we -- as we were engaged in 

conversations with people we heard that building blocks (inaudible) don’t --

don’t change the equation the same way that building block two does.

Instead it just adds generation and doesn’t reduce fossil generation. And so 

some folks have noted that this is inconsistent. So in the NODA we’ve raised 

this issue and we’ve identified if we were to do this a couple of different ways 

of doing this consistently the question is how you would replace historical 

generation from existing sources you could do it for example of a pro rata 

basis across all generation types, you know, fossils (steam), (gas servants), 

reflecting the mix or the second option would be to prioritize and first 

replacement for example fossil (steam) and then (gas servant) generation.

So that’s the fourth of the five topics but this is that our goal setting was based 

on data that we developed from the year 2012 and as we started talking to 

folks we heard concerns about use of 2012 or concerns about anomalies in 

2012. And so we are now providing similar data as we provided for 2010 and 

2011 in addition to the 2012 data and we’re seeking feedback in the NODA on 

that data specifically on questions about the attitude of data in those two data 

years as well as asking about whether there are -- there is a utility and EPA 

using a different single data year or average or a combination of years or 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 9

whether there might be circumstances that might justify using different data 

years individuals states and oppose using the same data year for all states.

So that’s a quick run through of the five topics areas. At this point I think 

we’ll turn it back and open it up for questions.

Operator: Thank you. At this time to ask an audio question please press star one on your 

telephone keypad. Again that’s star one to ask an audio question. We’ll 

pause for a moment to compile the Q&A roster. And your first question 

comes from the line of Bill O’Sullivan of New Jersey.

Bill O’Sullivan: Hi guys. I had quick fingers there. My question is to your Reid for goal --

item four on goal setting equation and expanding the concept of goal two, 

goals three and four, it’s just a concern I have that my staff has pointed out to 

me in reviewing the proposal. Under their current proposal you would 

eliminate coal and oil burning in New Jersey. If we did goal three and four 

for renewals and energy efficiency the same way we did goal two you would 

eliminate all my combined cycle natural gas and I don’t think that can be the 

intent.

So my question is, you know, have you looked into that? Is that a possible 

consequence? My staff correct in telling me that we would lose all our fossil 

fuel if we now implemented goals three and four like goal two.

Reid Harvey: I’m going to -- I’m going to let Kevin actually take this one.

Kevin Culligan: Hey Bill. This is Kevin Culligan and there actually is discussion of this in 

NODA itself. I think we realized that this change does in fact on it’s own, you 

know, lead to tighter targets that would have impact that you mentioned. 

However, we explicitly said that we would have to think about all of these 

things holistically and that that is not -- the intent is not just to do that. You 

have to think about all of the things that we thought about when we did the 

original proposal in terms of the impact on cost, the impact on reliability, the 

impact on fuel diversity.

So there’s sort of some feedback. As you look at what the equation does and 

then you look at each of the individual building blocks of how much you 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 10

might asked for under each building blocks. So, I think it implies a little more 

of a holistic look than just looking at the single -- this single change alone.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Nicholas Markin of Xcel Energy.

Nicholas Markin: Hi. This one I guess is for Reid as well. You mentioned just now and also in 

the NODA that this alternative treatment regionalized approach for renewable 

energy in your view better aligns the issue of renewable being (fitted) as 

instinct for goal setting but credited differently for compliance and I wonder if 

you could just say a little bit more about that. I’m not immediately

understanding how that -- how the new approach addresses that issue.

Reid Harvey: I think there’s some discussion about that in the NODA that talks about that 

topic. I don’t know the page number in front of me but I think the idea was 

we’ve heard feedback and we listed in the original part of the NODA from 

folks that there was this concern that the goal setting we looked at the 

existence of renewable within each states but then in the compliance side that 

we were looking to allow use of (inaudible) for use of real (inaudible) out of 

state.

And so we heard from folks that there was misalignment between the way that 

we set the goals and the way that we allowed for compliance.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of (Curwin Filton) of the New 

Mexico Environment.

(Curwin Filton): (I had a) question. When you talk about the phase in building block two, one 

of the things that the NODAs talked about is determining to what extent any 

additional infrastructure improvements are needed. I guess I have a question is 

to where would that infrastructure data come from? Who would be supplying 

that data or is it already publicly available?

Kevin Culligan: Thank you and this is Kevin Culligan. And I guess I’d respond in two ways. 

One; certainly one of the reasons that we put out the NODA is to share the 

ideas that commenter have shared with us and to get comment on them. So I

think we would welcome to comment on -- from anyone on what you think, 

you know, might be appropriate for us to consider. The second is that, you 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 11

know, we did in the original proposal and certainly would in any work moving 

forward the modeling, you know, the potential impact of the proposal or an 

eventual final role.

And in the modeling we do -- we do see the changes in natural gas usage, you 

know, which gives you the ability to think about what that might require in 

terms of infrastructure. So much of that data is already out there in terms of 

changes in natural gas use at a fairly, at a regionalize level that would help 

commenter look at under the original proposal and then, you know, think 

about potential changes about what that means in terms of needs to increase 

infrastructure for delivering gas.

Operator: Again to ask an audio question please press star one on your telephone keypad. 

Your next question comes from the line of (Dave Coup) of (Minnesota).

(Dave Coup): Yes. There is something in the NODA that talks about early reductions. I 

know there is language in the original proposal. Can you provide any clarity

on how early is early, as that when that rule is proposed in June, is it 2012 any 

clarity on that?

Kevin Culligan: I believe that in the original proposal we took a comment on a range of 

options. I think you actually mentioned two of them, one going back to 2012, 

a year we used largely for starting point one going to the original proposal and 

I believe a third option that was 2017, 2018 which I think is the line with sort 

of the last submittal date for a state plan. So really a pretty wide range 

between 2012 and 2020.

Operator: And there are no other audio questions at this time.

Scott Fraser: Operator, could you just quick re-prompt folks in case there is a last question 

before we close?

Operator: Certainly, again to ask an audio question please press star one on your 

telephone keypad. You do have a question from the line of (John Unangst) of 

American Electric Power.
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 12

(John Unangst): Afternoon. This is going to change topic because it seems like we’re running 

out of questions. I had seen indication that the agency may provide some 

additional discussion information on the rate to mass conversion process. Are 

you still intending to provide that?

(Joe Gagmen): Hi John and everybody. This is (Joe Gagmen). The answer of your question 

is yes and that document will be posted fairly soon.

(John Unangst): OK. Thanks.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of (Hang Yang) of Resources for the 

Future.

(Hang Yang): Hello. Thank you for the presentation. My question would be while reading 

this is CPP preamble it seems like EPA going to provide assistance to some of 

the state who don’t really have the capacity or don’t have the capacity to, you 

know, form their own renewable energy or energy efficiency reduction plan. 

So if there is going to be an assistant what -- is it just sort of proposal or the 

EPA claim that it will help if so in what kind of approach? Thank you.

Reid Harvey: Thank you. This is Reid. EPA provided on our Web site in June a list of 

federal resources in what we call a toolbox that enable to help space look at 

these questions. We’ve also been working with many of the state associations, 

some of whom are likely on the call today to work with them to develop 

information on available options that states can comply. So we have 

extensive process underway with states to work with them to identify their 

needs and to identify resources that we and the federal government or other 

parties can provide to help them move forward with their plans.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of (Marc Lapp) of Natural Resources. 

(Mark) your line is open.

(Marc Lapp): Yes. Thanks guys. I think my questions for Reid, it’s in regards to the 

alternative renewable energy goal setting approach. Have you guys looked at 

what the total amount of renewable energies target levels would be like for the 

country? Would it increase some quite a bit or would it be close to what’s 
EPA 

Moderator: Scott Fraser

10-29-14/3:00 p.m. ET

Confirmation # 27443703

Page 13

included in the proposal just kind of read a portion to the states based on 

whichever criteria you guys would elect.

Reid Harvey: That’s a good question. Let me -- let me turn to (Jeff Benhouse) in my group 

to answer that question.

(Jeff Benhouse): This is (Jeff). Yes. Just to clarify, it is a good question. It’s the latter of what 

you just described. It is much as the NODA is really trying to explain and by

comment on that methodology of how we attach RE potential and the (best 

system) individuals states recognizing that there are regional or multi state 

dynamics in play as Reid have covered earlier on the call and how, you know, 

RE generation is actually claimed and practice and that’s something we want 

to make sure what we’re doing and setting the date goals where, you know, 

we’re positioning that the system for that is successful as we can. The NODA 

was not speaking to the level of RE generation that would be in the best 

system because we felt we had put out enough information on that in the June 

proposal, so.

(Marc Lapp): Thank you.

Operator: Again to ask an audio question please press star one. And there are no other 

audio questions at this time.

Scott Fraser: OK. Great. This is Scott Fraser just closing this call. If your question comes 

to mind and you didn’t get a chance to ask it, you can send that into public 

engagement at epa.gov. A quick turn over to Kevin and Reid, any closing 

remarks?

Reid Harvey: No. Thanks for the opportunity to walk you guys through.

Kevin Culligan: Yes. We appreciate this. Thank you.

Scott Fraser: Great. Thanks everybody for joining.

Operator: Thank you. That does conclude today’s conference, you may now disconnect.

END