UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RAOIATIQ!I; 

MEMORANDUM 

Subj ect: 

From: 

To: 

Summary of Stakeholder Meetings 

Carissa Cyran 

Dockets EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602, EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13-0603, and EPA-HQOAR-20 13-0495 

This memo randum summarizes meetings with stakeholders during the week ofMarch 30,2015. 

On March 30, Associate Assistant Administrator for Climate and enior Counsel for Air and 

Radiation Joseph Goffman panicipated in a call with representati ves from EnergySavvy. 

On March 31 . Assoc iate Assistant Administrator for Climate and Senior Counsel for Air and 

Radiation Joseph Goffman met with representatives from the Association of Home Appliance 

Manufactures. Sign-in sheet and presentation are attached. 

On April L Acting Deputy Administrator Stan Meiburg, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air 

and Radi ation Janet McCabe and Associate Assistant Administrator lor Climate and Senior 

Counsel for Air and Radiation Joseph Goffman spoke with Kentucky state officials, including 

Energy and Environment Cabinet Secretary Len Peters. 

On April I, Associate Assistant Administrator for Climate and Senior Counse l for Air and 

Rad iation Joseph Goffman pru1icipated in a conference call on the Clean Power Plan with 

representati ves from Arkansas. 

On April 2, Associate Assistant Administrator for Climate and Senior Counsel for Air and 

Radiatio n Joseph Goffman met with Sue Tierney of the Analysis Group, Inc. Sign-in sheet 

attached. 

On April 2. Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Janet McCabe and Associate 

Assistant Administrator for Climate and Senior Counsel for Air and Radi ation Joseph Goffman 

met \Vith representatives from Edison Electric Institute. Sign-in sheet attached. 

On April 2. Associate Assistant Administrator for Climate and Senior Counsel for Air and 

Radiati on Joseph Goffman met with representatives from National Rural Electric Cooperative 

Associatio n. Sign-in sheet and handout are attached. 

Internet Address (URL) · http //Wivw epa gov 

Recycled/Recyc lable • Pr~nted w1th Vegetable OJI Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorme Free Recycled Paper 
Da te: March 31, 2015 

Meeting: AHAM Meeting Supporting lll(d) Objectives 

Rule(s) Discussed: /(I ()..) 

Written Materials@o 

Name Organization Phone N urn ber 

~S'-'fl z.o Z-4 LS- 53 57 

'-------'--"2'----0__,:;:l:::;___ 3 '13 q) l( G 

8-o~ 4 

2-fJL- b~ ?- -- l(C/6 1-- - ---+----

~0 (_ ,. &1'Z -L{-2 "2-Cf 

L 6 8dr .JYhc.-, U~rt-

£/!1-

-j 
APPLIANCE EARLY REPLACEMENT 

AND CAA SECTION 111(d) 

March 31 , 2015 

Goals of Presentation 

~ Underscore AHAM support for CPP energy efficiency goals 

~ Emphasize potential contribution to CPP goals of 

comprehensive appliance early replacement (ER) program 

~ Describe benefits of linked disposal/replacement programs 

.> Highlight detailed AHAM analysis (TSD) demonstrating large 

energy savings/GHG reductions from ER program 

.> Seek EPA support for DOE-led webinar on AHAM proposal and 

possible stakeholder process to develop model protocol 

~ Seek EPA recognition of ER program benefits in final CPP 

package and support materials 

> Underscore potential for early reduction credits to jumpstart EE 

programs under CPP 

)to- 1 Al-lAM 
AHAM Position on 111 (d) Proposal 

The appliance industry supports the use of energy 

efficiency to reduce GHG emissions 

EPA can capture significant untapped efficiency 

opportunities if it incentivizes states and utilities to reduce 

electricity consumption 

States and utilities may not pursue aggressive EE options 

without clear guidelines and examples of acceptable 

programs 

~ EPA encouragement and support of ambitious and 

innovative EE programs are very important 

~ 2 AliAM 

Early Replacement's Contribution to 

EPA 111 (d) EE Targets 

>- Because of dramatic efficiency gains, today's refrigerators 

use much less power than older units 

Under 2014 DOE standards, latest products are 25 percent more 

efficient than those produced in 2013 

Appliances have a long useful life and remain on the grid for many years 

147 million refrigerators are expected to be on the grid in 2016 

.>- Early replacement and disposal of a portion of these older 

refrigerators will yield immediate, large-scale energy savings and GHG reductions 

Aggressive rebate-driven ER programs can deliver 

significant benefits to states and utilities looking for low- cost compliance options under 111 (d) 

~ 3 AliAM 
I 

Strengthening Existing Rebate Programs 

~ Well-publicized rebate programs are proven motivators 

ARRA (stimulus legislation) provided $300M for rebates to replace 

older appliances 

.,... DOE called the program a "huge success" 

~ Existing appliance rebate programs have achieved modest 

success, but have not tapped full EE potential 

~ Current programs are hampered by --

Lack of consistent methodologies across jurisdictions 

>- Limited consumer recognition because of weak promotion 

Incomplete coverage-only 50% of US households have access to a 

refrigerator rebate 

.,... Burdensome EM&V requirements that increase overhead and reduce 

benefits that flow to consumers 

Stronger rebate programs with national promotion tied to 111(d) goals 

will achieve greater energy savings and GHG reductions 

.,.. 4 Al-fAM 

Changing the Paradigm: Linking 

Purchase and Disposal Rebates 

~ Programs combining purchase and disposal rebates are nearly 

non-existent (serving only 0.2-0.4% of US households) 

,. Existing programs seek to remove older appliances from the 

grid or incentivize purchase of new products, but not both 

, Energy savings are often measured as the difference 

between new ENERGY STAR and regular models 

~ Linking purchase and disposal rebates (i.e. requiring proof that 

old unit is removed from grid) will capture much greater 

efficiency increment between old and new unit 

~ According to NRDC: linked purchase/disposal rebates "greatly 

increase energy savings and cost-effectiveness while providing 

a wide range of environmental benefits" 

.,.. 5 Al-fAM 
Basic Program Design: AHAM Prototype 

National Program 

~ Minimum five year program 

> Robust national education/marketing campaign 

> Manufacturers and retailers have clear incentive to promote plan 

> Rebate levels in $100 range 

> Tiered, higher rebate for ENERGY STAR purchases 

> Additional rebate for removing 2nd unit 

~ Rebate conditioned on purchase of new unit and proper 

recycling of old one (i.e., no resale allowed, verification required) 

> No restriction on age of eligible refrigerators - maximize benefits 

> Some "free riders" may receive rebates, as in all such programs, 

but would be accounted for in measuring program benefits 

» GHG reduction credit based on difference in energy 

consumption between old and new refrigerator for remaining 

service life of old unit 

... 6 Al-lAM 

AHAM Cost-Benefit Analysis of 

Prototype Program 

~ Presented in Technical Support Document (TSD) to 

AHAM CPP comments 

> TSD models likely reductions in energy consumption, 

GHG emissions and associated costs 

> Uses decision-tree approach from DOE Uniform 

Methods Project (UMP) and EPA methodologies for 

converting energy savings into GHG reductions 

> Draws on extensive data in published literature, DOE 

reports and industry sources 

Excludes "free riders" from calculation of benefits 

... 7 Al-lAM 
Results of AHAM Modeling 

.> Per-unit energy savings: 

.> Total energy savings: 

.> Total C02 reduction: 

.> Program rebate cost: 

>- Total rebate costs: 

.> Total consumer savings: 

3,491 kWh 

52,368 GWh 

36.1 MMtC02 

2.8¢/kWh 

$1.5 billion 

$6.8 billion 

~ 8 Al-lAM 

The Path Forward: Developing an 

ER Model Protocol 

"» An "off the shelf' toolkit with standardized and validated EM&V 

protocols for refrigerator ER programs would: 

»- Avoid the need for states/utilities to reinvent the wheel 

Maximize the likelihood of state adoption and EPA approval 

Align national/regional promotion and consumer education 

"» AHAM has been working with DOE to developER toolkit 

DOE sponsoring April 30 webinar so AHAM can present TSD to a 

broad range of stakeholders 

DOE considering stakeholder process to develop consensus-based 

toolkit (perhaps using UMP or SEEAction framework) 

CEQ supportive of DOE efforts 

.>- Decision-tree approach in AHAM TSD could provide template 

for standardized EM&V metrics for quantifying energy savings 

and GHG reductions 

_. Can we count on EPA support and participation? 

~ 9 Al-lAM 
The Path Forward: Recognizing ER 

Benefits in Final CPP Package 

~ Final CPP package can provide strong recognition 

and encouragement for ER programs by: 

Emphasizing linked purchase/disposal paradigm 

~ Citing TSD projections of ER benefits and costs 

~ Underscoring potential for standardized EM& V 

metrics using AHAM decision-tree 

~ Highlighting benefits of coordinating ER programs 

at regional or national scale 

~ AHAM members will work with EPA and DOE to 

communicate EE opportunities under final CPP 

» 10 Al-fAM 

Jumpstarting a National ER Program with 

Early Reduction Credits 

>- EPA should include a robust "credit for early action" 

mechanism in its 111 (d) rule 

.> This would create incentives to begin implementing 

stronger EE programs immediately, before the 2020 

effective date 

Combined with a model ER toolkit, an early action 

mechanism would enable states and industry to launch 

a nationally coordinated ER program in 2015-2016 

>- Would provide strong early evidence of the success of 

111(d) 

» 11 AliAM 
Da te: Thursday, April 2, 2015 

Meeting: General w/Sue T ierney 

Rule(s) Discussed: (;PP 

Written Materials? ~ 

Name 

L 

Organization Phone N umber 
Date: ~, /W oZ a..:t I l . UD thv1 

Meeting: a :r a I 

Rule(s) Discussed: lf>f l U 

Written Materials? Y ~ 

Name Organization Phone Number 

£'£ 1 

£E( 

II 

;,V /)!/ 
. Date: April 2, 2015 

Meeting: lll(d) Reliability Concerns Discussion 

Rule(s) Discussed: C}fJP 

Written Materials&o 

Name 

~O..CL ~<71\.M-'-\\ ..,-

(fc; k tJ Ot/ (}.(c_ 

'r-Pf\1\l ~ (L<f:jt ~ lhJ 

T 

\ ' <..' ~ '"" t\ ; ; ( kl ".1< /\tv'-\. s.< 

:rO;c Nt,A~-t' Jl ') 

~ ~~/) j;)J~N---

f!JM'/1&1~~ 

)J;efJ/ffd-- A 

tv if1M)f/ AtllV;;/j; I -[7 (/ v 

r r 

1- -

1-

I 

Organization 

t--\. (2... «,... C' .A 

J}fl_~('A-

~(_ 

A-PP Pr· 

A-Pr'.4-

;; Pi 

1 I 

., ) 

>I 

' 

I Phone N um ber 

I 

~•")- q u'1.: &"1~\ 

7 6 J - 9 o? - -f"? ? f5 

7/)]. 1o7 S"b_'-11 

'2-0 I. - kti") - 1... t) 3> <..) 

;.o;- ~7- ,;CJ 3 I 

~/}2_ ) tj ) C(!i}l 

·z_oL {Gy 7CJJ'f 

I 

1\ '/ )I 

1/q_i_Ljj__j_ZO/ 

I 

I 

- '-· 
Conceptual Elements of a l l l(d) Dynamic Reliability Safety Valve Petition 

I. Purpose of Dynamic Reliability Safety Va lve Petition (DRSV): A petition's function under the 

DRSV is to request relief from EPA for affected states, regions, and utility entities, as the case 

may be, from C02 emission reduction mandates included in an approved state or mu lti-state plan 

(SP) or in a federal plan (FP) to the extent necessary or as required in order to maintain adequate 

and re liable e lectric service. 

2. Potential tdggcring events include: unforeseen and unavoidable c ircumstances or systemic 

changes in the availability and operability of e lectric energy resources relied on by the petitioner 

to meet the SP or FP. Triggering events include but are not limited to: large changes in available 

electric generation or e lectric transmission capabilities; fuel shortages or costs that impair the 

ability to acquire fue l, including fue l transportation shortfalls; extreme weather events, natural 

disasters, and acts of war; or changes in the laws, regulations and ru les a ffecting ava ilability of 

such resources. 

3. Who may submit a petition: A petition may be individually or j ointly submitted to EPA by the 

party or party subject to compliance obligation under the SP or FP, inc luding a n affected state or 

states and/or an affected e lectric utility entity or utility entities. A petition may be accompanied 

by a regiona l RTO/ISO or ba lancing authority in a joinder, but such a j oinder is not required. 

4. Content of petition: The petition shall include the following information: ( I) a description of the 

circumstances re lating to adequate and re liable electric service that petitioners believe make full 

or timely compliance with a SP or FP's C02 emission reduction budget, target or mi lestone 

impossible, impracticable, or unreasonable. (2) an accounting of the amount by which C0 2 

emissions are like ly to exceed the budget, target or milestone in order to e nsure adequate and 

re liable e lectric service and an estimation of the duration of the antic ipated exceedance, (3) a 

description of actions that have or may be undertaken to remedy or mitigate the exceedance while 

ensuring adequate and re liable electric service, or an explanation of why no actions are available, 

(4) if actions are identified, an explanation of wh ich actions the state, region, or entity has 

implemented or proposes to implement, together with a schedule for implementing the selected 

actions and an estimation of annual C0 2 emissions deviations from the SP or FP during and 

following implementation of the selected actions, (5) a schedule for completion of the selected 

actions, and (6) a request for temporar)' or permanen t adj ustment in the state, region, or entity's 

emission budget, target or milestone as the case may req uire . 

5. Requested relief and remedial actions: Petitions can inc lude requests for prospective and/or 

retrospective relie f from a C02 emission budget, target or milestone on an annual or sum of 

year·s basis to the extent required and based on the annua l C0 2 emissions deviations estimated in 

the petition; however, EPA has the right of annual review to ascertain that affected states, regions, 

and entities granted the relief are taking remedial actions as described in the petition to remedy 

the c ircumstances necessitating the granted relief. Should such remedial actions become no 

longer viable, the affected parties have the right to submit a revised petition identifying the 

fa ctors causing the aforementioned actions to no longer be viable and proposing different 

remedial actions or, as necessary, further re lie f from the SP or FP's emissions budget, target or 

milestone. 
6. Due process and procedural steps: A petition submitted before a relevant emissions compliance 

or true-up date shall serve to toll that date until EPA's approval o r denial of the petition. EPA 

sha ll evaluate the petition for completeness within a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days after 

submittal. Within this 60 day period EPA sha ll request any additional information needed to 

complete the petition. Within 30 days after the initial 60-day period or, if additional information 

is submitted in response to a request by EPA, with in 30 days after such information is submitted, 

EPA shall propose either to grant the petition, deny the petition, or grant the petition in part and 

deny the petition in part, and shall cause such proposal to be submitted to the Federal Register for 

publication. EPA shall take public comment on its proposed action for a period of30 days. After 

considering any comments submitted, EPA shall take final action on its pro posa l in accordance 

with 42 U.S.C. § 7607. 

7. EPA consultation with FERC on reliability matters: EPA shall request consultation and 

gu idance with FERC in matters related to reliabili ty as contai ned in a petition and shall give 

deference to FERC's response. EPA may not deny a petition in whole or part without requesting 

such consultation from FERC. EPA may depart from FERC's recommendations relating to 

reliability only if EPA explains its reasons for doing so. 

8. Scope of relief to be g ra nted by EPA: EPA shall not as a condition of petition approval or 

partial petition approval require emission offsets and shall not impose noncompliance pena lties 

for any actions or inactions that are the subject of a·n approved petition or for any actions or 

inactions that are the subject of a partia lly approved petition. The SP or FP as the case may be 

will be amended to the extent required to re flect the relief granted in a full or partially granted 

petition. Such re lie f shall include adj ustments in the compliance obligations of the affected 

facilities as the case may require. 

9. F inal agency action and judicial review: EPA's grant or denial of a petition for relief under the 

DSRV shall be considered a final agency action that is locally or regionally applicable. EPA's 

failure to act on a petition within the time periods provided sha ll be considered a denial of the 

petition and treated as fina l agency action. Petitions for judicial rev iew of EPA's grant or denial 

of a petition may be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate c ircuit in 

accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b). 

2