MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 13, 2014

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

FROM: EPA Region 1

SUBJECT: August 11, 2014, Meeting with Maine State Staff Regarding Proposed Carbon 

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on August 11, 2014 to 

discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. Discussion covered state 

goal calculations, crediting of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and accounting for 

imports and exports. 

ATTENDEES (all by phone)

Maine Department of Environmental Protection:

Marc Cone, Eric Kennedy, Erle Townsend, Jaime Farrin

Maine Governor’s Energy Office: 

Lisa Smith

EPA: 

Shutsu Wong

Dave Conroy

John Moskal

Bob McConnell

Joe Bryson

Matt Clouse

Michael Cohen

Colin Boswell

Jim Ketcham-Colwill

Julia Miller

Jeremy Mark

Denise Mulholland

Juan Santiago

David Solomon

Lora Strine

Erika Wilson
Questions provided by Maine are below: 

1. We understand that existing hydro power generation was not included in the baseline and the 

electricity generated from hydro is currently not being considered creditable in the future 

unless it is new. What constitutes “new”? What does that mean? We would like specific 

calculations as to how EPA arrived at Maine’s baseline rate and then how EPA calculated 

our target rate.

2. How is existing wind powered generation considered in the baseline calculation? Would 

existing wind and future wind generations be considered similarly as hydro generation? What 

is the cut-off date to distinguish between existing and new? Can Maine use existing wind 

generation as an offset for compliance? In calculating the offset for RE generation, do we use 

the generation capacity, or the actual MWh of generation (capacity factor consideration)?

3. We think we have heard that RE generated outside of the country would not be creditable. Is 

that true? In northern Maine the grid is connected to the Canadian grid and needs to rely on 

generation from out of the country. In addition, some of the renewable electricity proposed 

to be generated in northern Maine will need to be transmitted through Canada and then back 

into Maine to connect with ISO New England. Would that also not be considered creditable 

towards our compliance goal?

4. Who may take credit for carbon avoided by RE projects if the generation is created in Maine 

but is being used to meet RPS requirements in another state? Does the existence of a 

purchase power agreement with an out-of-state consumer for a particular RE project 

eliminate that project as a source for offset MWh for compliance? What circumstances allow 

Maine to retain credit for RE generated for out-of-state consumption, and what causes Maine 

to lose the credit?

5. In the TSD list of generating assets we see where industrial co-generation facilities are 

exempted. Could you point us to where that exemption is in the proposed regulation?

6. RGGI considers biomass renewable, does the EPA proposal? Is a >250 MMbtu/hr biomass 

facility that burns <10% fossil fuel exempt from 111d?

7. When the RE building block was calculated, the regional average RPS was used to establish 

the available RE potential in each individual state in a region. Because Maine’s RPS is much 

higher than the regional average, applying the building block makes it appear that there is 

much more available carbon savings through RE in Maine than there really is. This penalizes 

Maine for having so much RE already on line, and this penalty is made worse by the 

exclusion of existing hydropower from the equation. In reality, approximately 2/3 of Maine’s 

generation is already from renewable sources. Will EPA consider reassessing Maine’s goal 

based on a more realistic analysis of our RPS and our existing fleet of renewable generation?

8. Maine’s existing CC gas plant facilities are under-utilized. In EPA’s proposal, these facilities 

would increase their production of electricity and resulting CO2. Because Maine relies so 
heavily on renewable assets, the baseline and goal rates are below the CC plant rates, any 

increase use of these CC plants will only increase our final rate. We are being penalized, 

whether we choose to comply on a regional basis or individual state basis – due to no hydro 

credit. All of Maine’s CC natural gas plants meet the 111(b) proposed emission standards 

for a new plant. If one of those facilities were to come on line after the applicability date it 

would not be considered an affected EGU. Why is it considered an affected under the 

proposed rule, if the identical plant would be exempt at a later time? What if that plant were 

to be decommissioned, and then re-commissioned after the rule takes effect? Will EPA 

consider reassessing these plants as non-affected EGUs?

9. How should generating assets that were not listed in the TSDs be accounted for?