1 Fellner, Christian

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

Location: RTP-OAQPS-D210A-SPPD-IO-only/RT P-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 (45 th 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 le aders in Kansas 7 times for discussions with Kansas and regional stakeholders. The above informat ion is to simply establish that

I am not a "flake" or ideolo gue, but a practical, part nership-driven legislator.

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

raised the issue below du ring yesterday's Task Force meeting. They have not previously seen the specifics below, but did previo usly endorse the request to disc uss a way forward. If consensus2 on a path forward can be develo ped, NCSL involvement can provid e a means through which EPA can reach state policy-makers in all 50 states.

As you noted in your presentati on, EPA is often sued by both sides of every proposed rule promulgated, my goal is to cont inue advancing clean air policies while reducing the delays and expenses caused by lawsuits and Congressional funding d ecisions. To that end, I propose that a
small, reasonable workin g group be established to examine how a waiver ev aluation process for 111 (b) proposed coal-fired plants might be developed.

Conceptually, because the partial ca rbon capture technology availabilit y/effectiveness is likely to be the most contentious aspect of the proposed rule, the waiver fr om that requirement for any new coal-fired generation unit might include:

Best available technology - which would be lis ted 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) wi th anticipated reductions in ge neration/emission expectations;

Applicant company would submit a company-wide cust omer energy efficiency support/incentive plan with anticipated reductions in generation/emission expectations;

Applicant company would commit to upgrade the generation plant r eceiving a waiver when the EPA and State PUC/Environmental agen cy(s) mutually agre e such technology is available and a responsible course of action;

State PUC would agree that the applicant company's proposed en ergy plans described above are verifiable and acceptable;

The waiver be granted in respon se to finding at the state leve l that the propos ed 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 th e proposed plant has been evaluated at the state level in terms of being important for maintainin g affordable customer electric rates for those customers wholly or largely relian t 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 cons idered (e.g., grid system reliability, electricity affordability to low-income customers) are not primary concerns to EPA as an organization, though I know th at 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 interest s of environmental, utility, public , public officials, and agency stakeholders; a dialogue th at might serve to reduce litigation, a ccrimony, and delay in a manner that clearly establishes expectations for performa nce, accountability, an d avoids stagnation.3 If the above concept is intri g uin g to you and Administrator McCarthy, I su gg est that initial discussions involving: Administrator McCarthy and/or you, Acting FERC Chai rperson Cheryl LaFleur and/or
Commissioner Phil Moeller, DOE Assistant Secretary Patricia Hoffman, NARUC Executive Gray, a representative from a nationally recognized environmenta l advocacy group, a representative from EEI (perhaps AEP's CEO), and two NCSL Energy Task Fo rce members be convened. In the interest of achieving consensus, an independ ent, but knowledgable third part y might serve as moderator.
Alison Silverstein, consultant to FERC, DOE, and utility companies is highly effective in bringing disparate interest s to consensus.

I recognize that this request is outside the normal comment channels , but expect that any consensus reached on a viable waiver prog ram would be subject to public evaluation and comments. My g oal is simply to help minimize costly lit igation and time delays, while cont inuing to move forward to reduce emissions in a manner that maintains grid reliabilit y and affordable electrici ty to those who cannot self-generate.

Thank you for considering my thoughts and this request. I will be pl eased 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