1

Fellner, Christian

Subject: FW: Meeting w/ Tom Sloan (Call-in: 919-541-4485)

Location: RTP-OAQPS-D210A-SPPD-IO-only/RTP-OAQPS-BLDG-D/Restricted

Start: Mon 1/6/2014 1:30 PM

End: Mon 1/6/2014 2:30 PM

Show Time As: Tentative

Recurrence: (none)

Meeting Status: Not yet responded

Organizer: Tsirigotis, Peter

NOTE:  This documents a meeting that was held on 1/6/14 with Rep. Tom Sloan (45th District, State of Kansas House of

Representatives).  It needs to be placed in the GHG NSPS proposal docket.

Attendees:  

Tom Sloan, Peter Tsirigotis, Bob Wayland, Nick Hutson, Lora Strine (by phone)  

-----Original Appointment----- 

From: Tsirigotis, Peter 

Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 10:19 AM 

To: Tsirigotis, Peter; Strine, Lora; Fruh, Steve; Culligan, Kevin; Wayland, Robertj; Hutson, Nick 

Cc: Thompson, Fred 

Subject: Meeting w/ Tom Sloan (Call-in: 919-541-4485) 

When: Monday, January 06, 2014 1:30 PM-2:30 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). 

Where: RTP-OAQPS-D210A-SPPD-IO-only/RTP-OAQPS-BLDG-D/Restricted 

From: Tom Sloan <Tom.Sloan@house.ks.gov>

Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 12:35:32 PM

To: McCabe, Janet

Cc: Glen.andersen@ncsl.org; jeffmorris@energyhorizonllc.com

Subject: Request to discuss a waiver process

  

Ms. McCabe,

 

I was part of the audience at this morning's NCSL meeting at which you spoke. I am serving my 

10th term in the Kansas House of Representatives, am a leading legislator on energy and water 

issues within NCSL and the Council of State Governments (CSG), serve on two DOE advisory 

committees and one FCC committee, and have hosted FERC and DOE leaders in Kansas 7 times for 

discussions with Kansas and regional stakeholders. The above information is to simply establish that 

I am not a "flake" or ideologue, but a practical, partnership-driven legislator.

 

I am copying NCSL staff and the Co-Chairman of the NCSL Energy Supply Task Force because I 

raised the issue below during yesterday's Task Force meeting. They have not previously seen 

the specifics below, but did previously endorse the request to discuss a way forward. If consensus 
2

on a path forward can be developed, NCSL involvement can provide a means through which EPA can 

reach state policy-makers in all 50 states.

 

As you noted in your presentation, EPA is often sued by both sides of every proposed rule 

promulgated, my goal is to continue advancing clean air policies while reducing the delays and 

expenses caused by lawsuits and Congressional funding decisions. To that end, I propose that a 

small, reasonable working group be established to examine how a waiver evaluation process for 111 

(b) proposed coal-fired plants might be developed. 

 

Conceptually, because the partial carbon capture technology availability/effectiveness is likely to be 

the most contentious aspect of the proposed rule, the waiver from that requirement for any new 

coal-fired generation unit might include:

 

Best available technology - which would be listed and updated annually by a group of EPA and 

industry experts;

 

Applicant company would submit a company-wide energy efficiency plan (e.g., installation of volt-var 

devices to reduce line losses) with anticipated reductions in generation/emission expectations;

 

Applicant company would submit a company-wide customer energy efficiency support/incentive plan 

with anticipated reductions in generation/emission expectations;

 

Applicant company would commit to upgrade the generation plant receiving a waiver when the EPA 

and State PUC/Environmental agency(s) mutually agree such technology is available and a 

responsible course of action;

 

State PUC would agree that the applicant company's proposed energy plans described above are 

verifiable and acceptable; 

 

The waiver be granted in response to finding at the state level that the proposed coal-fired 

generation plant contributes to the state, regional, and/or national grid system's reliability, including 

fuel diversity as a reliability factor;

 

That the waiver be granted in recognition that the proposed plant has been evaluated at the state 

level in terms of being important for maintaining affordable customer electric rates for those 

customers wholly or largely reliant on the electric grid to meet their needs (e.g., less affluent 

customers);

 

The proposed plant demonstrates movement on reducing carbon emission levels.

 

I recognize that some of the proposed factors to be considered (e.g., grid system 

reliability, electricity affordability to low-income customers) are not primary concerns to EPA as an 

organization, though I know that Administrator McCarthy and you personally recognize their 

importance. The above is an attempt to develop a dialogue that will encompass the policy, 

economic, and philosophical interests of environmental, utility, public, public officials, and agency 

stakeholders; a dialogue that might serve to reduce litigation, accrimony, and delay in a manner that 

clearly establishes expectations for performance, accountability, and avoids stagnation.

 
3

If the above concept is intriguing to you and Administrator McCarthy, I suggest that initial discussions 

involving: Administrator McCarthy and/or you, Acting FERC Chairperson Cheryl LaFleur and/or 

Commissioner Phil Moeller, DOE Assistant Secretary Patricia Hoffman, NARUC Executive Gray, a 

representative from a nationally recognized environmental advocacy group, a representative from EEI 

(perhaps AEP's CEO), and two NCSL Energy Task Force members be convened. In the interest of 

achieving consensus, an independent, but knowledgable third party might serve as moderator. 

Alison Silverstein, consultant to FERC, DOE, and utility companies is highly effective in bringing 

disparate interests to consensus.

 

I recognize that this request is outside the normal comment channels, but expect that any consensus 

reached on a viable waiver program would be subject to public evaluation and comments. My goal is 

simply to help minimize costly litigation and time delays, while continuing to move forward to reduce 

emissions in a manner that maintains grid reliability and affordable electricity to those who cannot 

self-generate.

 

Thank you for considering my thoughts and this request. I will be pleased to discuss this conceptual 

approach with you or your associates.

 

Tom

Tom Sloan

Kansas' 45th District Representative

785-841-1526

tom.sloan@house.ks.gov