Clean Power Plan:Supplemental Proposal forIndian Country and U.S. TerritoriesOctober 3, 2014E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite,Quote or Release During ReviewBackground and Stakeholder Outreach►June 18, 2014, proposal did not address areas of Indiancountry and U.S. territories►Supplemental action proposes:►Rate-based goals for CO2emissions for areas of Indian country andU.S. territories with affected EGUs►Guidelines for plans to achieve those goals►Stakeholder outreach:►Territories: held calls with stakeholders in Puerto Rico and Guam►Tribes:►Participated in National Tribal Air Association call and webinars►Held consultations with three tribes that have affected EGUs on theirlands and other tribes that requested consultation2E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite,Quote or Release During ReviewApproach for Supplemental Proposal►BSER and setting goals:►Proposing that BSER is the same as for states►Proposing same methodology as for states to determine goals; applying fourbuilding blocks to 2012 data•Note that for building block 3 there are no renewable energy (RE) targets forIndian country and territories using the method proposed for states because 2012non-hydropower RE generationfor those areas is zero•We are taking comment on an adjustmentto the proposed methodology, whichresults in a positive amount of RE for building block 3►For Indian country, proposing goals foreach of the three areas of Indiancountry with affected EGUs: lands of the Navajo Nation, Ute Tribe of theUintah and Ouray Reservation, and Fort Mojave Tribe►For territories, proposing goals for Puerto Rico and Guam only►No affected EGUs identified in American Samoa or Northern Mariana Islands►Two potentially affected EGUs in U.S.Virgin Islands; one has not operated in 20years and the other has not operated since 2011; therefore, their 2012 baselinehas no affected units andwe are not proposing a goal3E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite,Quote or Release During ReviewCO2Goals for Areas of Indian Country and U.S. Territories4Area 2012 Rate(lb/MWh)Interim Goal Final GoalLands of the NavajoNation2,121 1,993 1,993Lands of the Ute Tribe ofthe Uintah and OurayReservation2,145 2,016 2,016Lands of the Fort MojaveTribe858 858 858Puerto Rico 1,750 1,485 1,426Guam 1,944 1,726 1,582E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite,Quote or Release During ReviewImplementation Plan Guidelines for Indian Country and Territories►Areas of Indian country with affected EGUs:►Tribes can choose to seek the authority to develop a plan, but are notrequired to do so►Pursuant to Tribal Authority Rule, EPA must promulgate such federal planprovisions as are necessary or appropriate if a tribe does not seek and obtainthe authority to submit a plan►We are not proposing a determination regarding any tribe’s eligibility todevelop a plan or whether a federal plan is necessary or appropriate►Territories:►Proposing the same guidelines and timing for implementation plans asproposed for states►Areas without affected EGUs (e.g., other tribal areas, Vermont, D.C.,Canada):►Taking comment in proposal on allowing state or multi-jurisdictional plans toinclude EE, RE and new units located in areas without affected EGUs5E.O. 12866 Review – Draft – Do Not Cite,Quote or Release During ReviewImpacts of Supplemental Proposal►Indian country: no additional costs, emission reductions or benefits►Navajo: if converted to mass-based goal, expected to comply withoutadditional actions beyond shutdowns already occurring due to BART►Ute: costs, reductions and benefits already included in June proposal•Plant not identified as affected but wasgiven opportunity to improve heat ratein the modeling, which projected aheat rate improvement; thus, modelingalready captured the impactof the goal on this plant►Fort Mojave: no costs, reductions or benefits since goal is equivalent to 2012baseline►Territories:►Costs in 2030: savings of $410 million►CO2reductions in 2030: 3.4 million tons►Climate benefits in 2030: $190 million (2011$ at a 3% discount rate)►We are unable to estimate the criteria pollutant reductions in the territories dueto data limitations►Additionally, we would be unable to quantifyhealth co-benefits in the territoriesbecause the benefit-per-ton values used are only appropriate for areas withinthe continental U.S.; we discuss the potential health impacts of the reductionsqualitatively6