The State of New Hampshire 

I!HDES 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

~ Thomas S. Burack, Commissioner 

Oral Comments 

July 30, 2014 Public Hearing 

Re: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602 

Proposed Carbon Pollution Emission Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units 

Thank you for the opportunity to present oral comments on behalf of the New Hampshire 

Departrnent of Environmental Services (DES) in response to the Environmental Protection Agency's 

(EPA's) proposed Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from existing power plants. We 

appreciate EPA's comprehensive efforts to reach out to states and other stakeholders, and we welcome 

this proposal. New Hampshire has demonstrated, and will continue to demonstrate, leadership in this 

arena. In 2002, we enacted the New Hampshire Clean Power Act, first-in-the-nation legislation that 

addressed CO2emissions from power plants. In 2008, New Hampshire enacted legislation that 

authorized the state's participation in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), and in 2009, 

New Hampshire, along with nine other RGGI States, began implementing the program. One of the 

original purposes of the RGGI program was to demonstrate the viability of a flexible, market-based 

regional cap on emissions as the basis for a potential federal program. Our states collectively 

represent the world's 7thlargest economy, and our region's economy has benefitted significantly from 

the investments of RGGI allowance revenues at the same time that they have helped to lower regional 

emissions. 

New Hamushire's Plan 

With respect to New Hampshire's plan for compliance with EPA's proposal, first, and 

foremost, our state requests that EPA recognize and accommodate our state's, and the RGGI region's, 

early leadership by providing the greatest available flexibility to the states in complying with the 

proposed Section 111(d) guidelines by continuing to participate in RGGI via one multi-state, massbased plan submission. DES supports the RGGI comments previously submitted to EPA by letter 

dated December 2, 2013 posted at 

http://www.rggi.org/docs/RGGI_States_l l ld_Letter Comments.pdf. Not only have regional CO2 

emissions already been reduced by more than 40% from 2005 levels, but New Hampshire COZ 

emissions have been reduced by over 48%. RGGI will achieve an additional 14% reduction from its 

2014 cap of 91 million tons by 2020. Also, new sources are covered under the RGGI cap, which may 

represent significant additional reductions. DES believes that a reliable and effective method for 

developing mass-based emission targets is critical to helping states take advantage of the lowest cost 

carbon reduction options under EPA's proposal, thereby avoiding duplicative regulation. DES is 

hopeful that we will be able to work with EPA to ensure that RGGI serves as an effective compliance 

mechanism. DES further believes that a mass-based program, like RGGI, will be one of the most 

effective ways to transparently track and verify emissions reductions and compliance. 

DES is still reviewing and analyzing many details of EPA's proposal, including the proposed 

rate-based 2030 goal of 486 lbs/MWh for New Hampshire, and the applicability of the four building 

blocks (heat rate improvements for coal, greater dispatch to natural gas, increased renewable and 
Public Hearing on Proposed COZEmissions Guidelines from Existing EGUs July 30, 2014 

NHDES' Oral Comments to U.S. EPA Pa e 2 o 2 

nuclear energy, and energy efficiency). In general, we believe that the required EPA state rate goals 

should be equitably distributed amongst the states and should not disadvantage states that have been 

early movers in reducing their CO2 emissions from power plants. DES plans to include additional 

feedback on the proposed rate targets, and other aspects of EPA's proposal, in comments that we will 

submit before the close of the 120-day comment period. 

There are some broad issues relating to formulation of the Best System of Emission 

Reductions (BSER) as established under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act that I would like to point 

out relating to renewable energy and nuclear energy. 

Renewable Ener ~y 

DES lauds EPA for its intent to recognize and incent non-emitting renewable generation 

as one of the "building blocks" in its approach to determining BSER. However, based on DES' 

analysis to date, we do not believe that EPA's primary proposal that involves averaging of state 

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) goals across regions is workable. DES believes that EPA's 

alternative approach may be more workable, and DES looks forward to engaging with EPA to 

ensure the effectiveness of this building block. 

Nuclear EnerEy 

DES stresses the importance of setting standards that preserve nuclear and other options 

for fuel diversity and maintain grid reliability. However, we are unclear as to what actions our 

state might be expected to undertake in response to the proposed 6% allowance for nuclear plants 

considered to be "at risk" nationally. Furthermore, even the nuclear plants that remain operating 

preserve fuel diversity and maintain grid reliability and are non-emitting. Seabrook Station, New 

Hampshire's only nuclear plant, completed an early 100 MW uprate in 2005 and 2006 that avoids 

additional fossil fuel-fired generation and that should be recognized under EPA's proposal. 

Conclusion 

In summary, DES applauds EPA's recognition of regional cost-effective market-based 

programs, like RGGI, which have demonstrated that they can help states realize environmental and 

economic goals while maintaining electricity grid reliability. Again, DES supports the flexibility 

provided by the current proposal, which signals that a multi-state, mass-based program, such as RGGI, 

can serve as the Best System of Emission Reductions.