# MEMORANDUM

DATE: December 17, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket ID: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Melanie King, Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards

SUBJECT: December 16, 2014 Meeting and Tribal C onsultation with Ute Tribe Regarding Proposed

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the at tendees listed below on December 16, 2014, to

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan Supplementa l Proposal for Existing Power Plants in Indian

Country and U.S. Territories. The Clean Power Pl an Supplemental Proposal was issued on October 28,

2014, and published in the Federal Register on Novemb er 4, 2014. Attached are the slides presented by

EPA during the meeting.

ATTENDEES

Ute Tribe

 Ronald Wopsock, Vice Chairperson, Uint ah Band Rep., Tribal Business Committee

 Stewart Pike, Uncompahgre Band Rep., Tribal Business Committee

 Jeremy Patterson, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP

 Chris Reagen, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan LLP

EPA

 William Niebling, OAR

 Pat Childers, OAR

 Greg Green, OAR/OAQPS

 Kevin Culligan, OAR/OAQPS

 Laura McKelvey, OAR/OAQPS

 Melanie King, OAR/OAQPS

 Mary Johnson, OAR/OAQPS

 Toni Colón, OAR/OAQPS

 Carl Daly, Region 8

 Mike Boydston, Region 8

 Kimberly Varilek, Region 8

 Alfreda Mitre, Region 8

 Randy Brown, Region 8

 Laura Farris, Region 8

 Bob Ward, Region 8Clean Power Plan:Supplemental Proposal for Power Plantsin Indian Country and U.S. TerritoriesDecember 16, 2014Agenda►Clean Power Plan Supplemental Proposal►Why is EPA Proposing the Clean Power Plan?►Affected Power Plants in Indian Country and U.S. Territories►Determination of the Best System of Emission Reduction and Goals►Implementation Plan Guidelines►Impacts of the Supplemental Proposal►Outreach and Consultations►Public Input2Clean Power Plan Supplemental Proposal►On October 28, 2014, EPA issuedthe Clean Power Plan supplementalproposal to address carbon pollution from affected power plants inIndian country and U.S. territories►Published in theFederal Registeron November 4►Supplemental proposal has two main elements:►Rate-based goals for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the powersector specific to each area of Indian country and U.S. territory that hasexisting fossil fuel-fired electric generating units►Guidelines for these areas to follow in developing plans to achieve thearea-specific goals►Supplemental proposal relies on approach used in June 2014 CleanPower Plan proposal for states3Why is EPA Proposing the Clean Power Plan?►CO2is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) that contributes to climatechange►CO2is the primary GHG pollutant, accounting for nearly 75% of globalGHG emissions and 82% of GHG emissions across the country►GHG pollution is causing potentially rapid, damaging and long-lastingchanges in our climate that can have a range of severe negative effectson human health and the environment►May 2014 report of the National Climate Assessment concluded thatclimate change impacts are alreadymanifesting themselves andimposing losses and costs; report documents increases in extremeweather and climate events in recent decades, damage and disruptionto infrastructure and agriculture, and projects continued increases inimpacts across a wide range of communities, sectors, and ecosystems4General Overview of Clean Power Plan►Proposal sets an interim (2020-2029) and final goal (2030) for affectedpower plants in each area to reduce carbon pollution►EPA is not prescribing measures these areas need to implement to meetthe goal►Areas have flexibility to choose what goes into their plan – how andwhen to get the necessary reductions, provided the goals are met inestablished timeframe►Option to translate rate-based goal to mass equivalent►Choose what works best in an area, tailored to its needs and policyobjectives►Opportunity to build on existing energy efficiency and renewableenergy programs►Option to work with other areas through multi-jurisdictional plans►Fits into existing utility electricity sector planning processes5Affected EGUs in Indian Country and Territories►Indian Country:►Four affected power plants:•South Point Energy Center on Fort Mojave tribal lands withinArizona•Four Corners Power Plant on Navajo tribal lands within NewMexico•Navajo Generating Station on Navajo tribal lands within Arizona•Bonanza Power Plant on Ute tribal lands within Utah►U.S. Territories:►Six affected power plants in Puerto Rico►Two affected power plants in Guam6Determination of the Best System of Emission Reduction►To set goals for each area, EPA first determined the Best System ofEmission Reduction (BSER)►Because the power sector is interconnected, EPA determined that aset of 4 types of measures, or“building blocks,” together are thebest system to reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuel-fired powerplants►BSER is made up of 4 building blocks:(1) measures to make coal plants more efficient (e.g., heat rateimprovements)(2) increased use of high efficiency, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)units (e.g., redispatch)(3) generating electricity from low- or zero-emitting facilities(4) demand-side energy efficiency►After determining the BSER,EPA set the goals based on applicationof the BSER to each area7Proposed Goals for Areas of Indian Country►Notes:►No adjustments from building block 1 for Fort Mojave lands►No adjustments from building block 2►Proposing one option for application of building block 3 and takingcomment on alternatives►Requesting comment on projected retail electricity sales growth forIndian country (used for building block 4)8Proposed Goals (adjusted output-weighted-average lb CO2/net MWh)AreaofIndianCountry InterimGoal FinalGoalLandsoftheFortMojaveTribe 856 855LandsoftheNavajoNation 1,991 1,989LandsoftheUteTribeoftheUintahandOurayReservation 2,000 1,988Translation of Goals to Mass-Based Equivalents►EPA provided additional information in November 2014 onpotential ways to translate the rate-based CO2goals to a massbased equivalent, including two illustrative approaches:►First produces mass-based equivalents that apply to existing fossilfuel fired sources only►Second produces mass-based equivalents that are inclusive ofemissions from existing affected and new fossil fuel-fired sources9AreaofIndianCountryExistingAffectedSourcesOnlyExistingAffectedandNewSourcesLandsoftheFortMojaveTribe 528 532LandsoftheNavajoNation 26,731 26,893LandsoftheUteTribeoftheUintahandOurayReservation2,787 2,876Final Mass Equivalent (Thousand Metric Tons)Implementation Plan Guidelines►Areas of Indian country with affected EGUs:►Tribes may seek authority to implement 111(d) plans►Pursuant to the Tribal Authority Rule, if tribes do not seek and obtainthe authority to establish a plan,EPA must promulgate such federalplan provisions as are necessary or appropriate►EPA is not proposing a determination regarding any tribe’s eligibilityto develop a plan or whether afederal plan is necessary orappropriate►Areas without affected EGUs (e.g., other tribal areas, Vermont,D.C., Canada):►Taking comment on allowing state or multi-jurisdictional plans toinclude demand side energy efficiency, renewable energy, and newunits located in areas without affected EGUs10Impacts of the Clean Power Plan►No additional costs, emission reductions or benefits for IndianCountry for the supplemental proposal►Navajo: if converted to mass-based equivalent, expected to complywithout additional actions beyond shutdowns already occurring due toRegional Haze►Ute and Fort Mojave: costs, reductions and benefits already included inJune Clean Power Plan proposal►Impacts of June Clean Power Plan proposal:►By 2030, CO2emission reductions from the power sector of approximately30 percent from 2005 levels►Reductions of other pollutants including SO2, NOx, and directly emittedPM2.5►Net climate and health benefits of $48 billion to $82 billion in 203011Outreach and Consultation Prior to Proposal►EPA held a listening session and outreach meeting with tribes,and participated in NTAA teleconferences and webinars►EPA sent consultation letters to leaders of all federally recognizedtribes when the June 2014 Clean Power Plan proposal wasissued►EPA held consultations with the Ute Tribe, Crow Nation, MHANation, Fort Mojave Tribe, and Navajo Nation; concerns raisedincluded:►Impacts of Clean Power Plan on tribes with budgets and employmentdependent on coal mines and power plants►Application of building blocks 3 and 4 for the Navajo Nation►Impacts on renewable energy projects on tribal lands►Ability of tribes to control any available carbon credits under a tradingprogram12Public Input►Public hearing was held on November 19, 2014►Public comments will be accepted through December 19, 2014►Comments should be identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0602►EPA intends to take final action on the supplemental proposal inconjunction with final actionon the proposed Clean Power Planfor states►For more information:►http://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan13