1☺ 	
	

From: Lisa Jacobson <ljacobson@bcse.org>

Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:24 PM

To: A-AND-R-DOCKET

Cc: Drinkard, Andrea; Zoe Berkery Subject: REVISED PDF for BCSE comments to USEPA on Docket ID No. EPA-HQOAR-2013-0602...
Attachments: BCSE Comments on Proposed CPP 11 19 14 FNL (3).pdf

**Please see the** REVISED **attached PDF and text version below of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy’s comments**  **to the US Environmental Protection Agency in respon se to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. I apolog**  **ize for the inconvenience, please use the attached PDF and do n**  **ot hesitate to contact Lisa Jacobson, BCSE Presiden t, with any**  **questions regarding this submission.**

-----------

November 19, 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy Administrator, United States Environmental Protecti on Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460

To Be Submitted via: A-and-R-Docket@epa.gov

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

Comments to the EPA and States on the Proposed Clea n Power Plan Regulating Existing Power Plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act

Dear Administrator McCarthy:

The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE o r the Council) appreciates the opportunity to provi de the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan. The Council off ers its views with the aim of improving the final rule and to ass ist states as they begin the process of implementat ion planning.

BCSE is a coalition of companies and trade associat ions from the energy efficiency, natural gas, and r enewable energy sectors, and also includes independent electric pow er producers, investor-owned utilities, public powe r, commercial end-users, and environmental and energy market serv ice providers. Founded in 1992, the Council advoca tes for policies at the state, national, and international levels th at increase the use of commercially- available clean energy technologies, products, and services. The coalition's broad-base d business membership is united around the revitali zation of the economy and the creation of a secure and sustainabl e energy future for America.

The Council has provided comments to EPA on a range of air quality and climate change initiatives sinc e its founding. With regard to reducing greenhouse gas ( GHG) emissions, the Council supports market-based p rograms that utilize performance-based metrics. Further, BCSE r epresents a portfolio of commercially-available res ources, technologies, and services that are proven to reduc e air pollution and GHG emissions in an affordable and reliable
manner. These solutions should be used to their fu ll potential as compliance options. Of note, as a diverse coalition, not all members take positions or endorse all the issue s discussed in this submission.2 A Changing US Energy Landscape

The Council, in partnership with Bloomberg New Ener gy Finance (BNEF), produces an annual Sustainable E nergy in
America Factbook to track the investment and market trends in the US energy sector. [1] The 2014 edition documents the continued transformation of how the US produces and consumes energy. Key points from the 2014 Fac tbook
include:

• The country’s total annual energy consumption in 20 13 was 5.0 percent below 2007 levels, due in large measure to advances in energy efficiency. This trend was i n part prompted by the economic downturn of 2008-09 , but as economic growth has returned energy use has not gro wn at a commensurate rate. The net result is a mor e energy-efficient and energy productive economy (i.e ., higher GPD per unit of energy consumed).

• Over that same period (2007-13), use of lower- and zero-carbon energy sources has grown, while other m ajor energy sources such as coal and oil have experience d significant declines. Natural gas production and consumption hit all-time highs in 2013, and natural gas-fired power plants provided 28 percent of US e lectricity in 2013, up from 22 percent in 2007. Renewable ele ctricity generation, including power from large hyd ro projects, grew from 8.3 percent to 12.9 percent ove r that period. Since 1997, 94 percent of new power generation capacity built in the US has come in the form of natural gas plants or renewable energy fac ilities.

• Renewable electricity generation costs touched all- time lows allowing renewables in some locations to underprice traditional fossil-powered competitors

**.** Prices of solar modules have declined by 99 percent since 1976 and by about 80 percent since 2008. For wind, utilities in Texas, the Southwest, and the Midwest signed PP As in the $20-35/MWh range for wind projects that are coming online in the 2014-15 period; these prices are well below the levelized cost of electricity of fossil technol ogies.

• Energy efficiency policy is maturing, and investmen ts are ramping up to the benefit of buildings and
industries. As of 2013, 26 states had energy efficiency resourc e standards (EERS); 31 states, covering 77 percent of the US population, had legislation enabling ener gy efficiency deployment to be paid through propert y tax bills, or property assessed clean energy (PACE) fin ancing (although PACE financing is not yet availabl e in most of these states); and 7 percent of US commercial secto r floor space was covered under policies requiring buildings to achieve energy efficiency benchmarks or mandatin g disclosure of energy consumption. Energy efficie ncy financing across two major frameworks – utility spe nding to comply with resource standards and energy service companies’ (ESCOs) investments – has been on an upw ard trend and amounted to more than $12bn in 2012. Energy intensity in key industrial sectors h as been falling; while manufacturing industrial out put decreased by 3 percent over 2002-10, energy consump tion fell by 17 percent.

• Transportation is being revolutionized by new polic ies, technologies, and fuels. Federal corporate av erage fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars are set to double by 2025, relative to 2011 levels. Medium- and hea vy-duty vehicle fuel economy standards have been implemente d with more stringent standards in the works, while fleets have adopted numerous voluntary measures. S ales of hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles are r ising and totalled nearly 600,000 vehicles in 2013 (3.8 perce nt of US passenger vehicle sales). Fuel Cell Elect ric Vehicles (FCEVs) are coming to market and hydrogen infrastru cture investments are being made. Additionally, ei ght states recently signed a MOU to deploy more than 3 million zero emission vehicles by 2025. Natural ga s use in the transport sector is up 33 percent since 2007. These developments, along with a growing role for b iofuels, have driven gasoline consumption down 7.7 percent s ince 2005. Information and communications technolo gy (ICT) advances have been critical from individual v ehicle efficiency to logistics software and GPS app lications to elements of evolving intelligent transportation sys tems, which should be viewed as integral components of our energy infrastructure.

• These trends have combined to put US carbon dioxide emissions on a long-term downward trajectory. In 2009, President Obama announced a goal of achieving a 17 percent reduction in GHG emissions by 2020 relative to3

2005 levels. Total GHG emissions peaked in 2007 at 7.26Gt and have dropped by an estimated 9.8 percent since 2005, putting the US more than halfway to its goal.

BCSE Engagement with EPA Prior to the Release of th e Proposed Clean Power Plan

BCSE submitted comments to the EPA on December 13, 2013 offering preliminary recommendations for the d esign of regulations for carbon emissions from existing powe r plants. BCSE recommended that the proposed rule:



### • Allow energy efficiency (including combined heat an d power (CHP), waste heat to power, and utilization of waste heat recovery), the full set of renewable ene rgy options, as well as natural gas and propane to be made eligible and viable as compliance options.



### • Provide flexibility to states to develop and implem ent cost-effective compliance plans.



### • Adopt a system-wide approach to compliance that per mits outside the fence activities to contribute tow ard meeting the state targets.



### • Provide guidance on Evaluation, Monitoring, and Ver ification (EM&V) protocols that give confidence to states and other actors that energy efficiency, ren ewable energy, and natural gas can be used as compl iance
tools.



### • Recognize programs and policies at state and region al levels that have been drivers of clean energy technology deployment and GHG reductions including the importance of predictable siting and permitting processes for new infrastructure.

BCSE Views on the Proposed Clean Power Plan

BCSE commends the release of the proposed Clean Pow er Plan in June 2014. Further, the timeline set fo r finalization and implementation of the standards show that the U nited States seeks to take meaningful steps to addr ess climate change at the federal level.

As data from the past several years has revealed, t he mix of the US energy supply is changing rapidly, with low-carbon sources gaining market share. At the same time, en ergy consumption is down, despite overall economic growth. This
demonstrates that the US can reduce GHG emissions w ithout harming the US economy. The proposed Clean Power Plan recognizes these trends and seeks to build upon the m.

BCSE appreciates that several of its preliminary re commendations were considered and incorporated into the proposed Clean Power Plan. Of note, the proposal recognizes :

• A diverse portfolio of clean energy technologies th at are available as compliance options;

• Prior investments and established programs that hav e reduced emissions; and

• State flexibility in designing and implementing emi ssion reductions, which is critical for cost-effect ive compliance.

In considering compliance options, it is important to evaluate them based on the emissions profile of the state or region where the investment is being made.

The Council would also like to commend EPA for inco rporating output-based metrics in establishing the Best System of Emissions Reduction (BSER). In addition, BCSE appr eciates EPA’s inclusion of both rate-based and mass -based approaches in the proposal. As such, BCSE supports EPA’s view that renewable energy and demand-side e nergy efficiency measures may be incorporated into a rate -based approach through an adjustment or tradable c redit system. This approach should be applied to all dem and-side solutions, including fuel cells and CHP.

While the BCSE has not provided comments on the ran ge of issues related to EPA’s approach to establish ing the BSER under the proposed Clean Power Plan, EPA’s inclusio n of the system-wide approach to compliance is fund amental to increasing the use of clean energy technologies and substantially lowering emissions. Without this, t he states would4 have fewer options for compliance and less flexibil ity. Utilizing a diverse portfolio of clean energy options available for compliance will make the US economy stronger, reduc e emissions and increase resiliency. BCSE notes th e legal arguments underpinning system-wide compliance that were included in the proposal [2] as well views that concur with this approach. [3]

Further, BCSE supports the recognition of past inve stments and initiatives that have generated GHG emi ssion reductions, and encourages EPA to do so it its fina l rule.

In reviewing the proposal, there are a number of ar eas that the BCSE seeks further clarification. Plea se see the following sections that outline the Council's questions and r ecommendations.

BCSE Comments on Design Elements in the Proposed Cl ean Power Plan

The BCSE comments are arranged in several sections. The first section focuses on cross-cutting issues . The subsequent sections focus on industry specific topics related to the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy , and natural gas. BCSE has focused its comments largely on aspe cts of the proposal that inform compliance planning . BCSE encourages EPA to consider the comments submitted b y its members on other aspects of the proposal as w ell as
technical issues related to their sectors.



### 1. Section 1 – Cross-Cutting Topic Areas

**1.1 Affirm that Non-Building Block Technolo gies, Resources, and Practices are Eligible as Comp**  **liance Options**

There are many readily-available clean energy techn ologies, resources, and practices that can be used by states to reduce GHG emissions. EPA should affirmatively ind icate that technologies, resources, and practices t hat are not included in the Building Blocks can be eligible as compliance options for states. This is essential to ensure that all viable clean energy technology options are considered.

**1.2 Support Regional Compliance Planning in the Clean Power Plan** 

BCSE urges EPA to support all mechanisms necessary to allow states to engage in a regional compliance approach. Regional compliance options have the pot ential to give states additional flexibility, while also minimizing the risks of double counting carbon reduction gains. T o facilitate consideration of regional approaches, EPA should develop guidance for states and offer technical assistance. This could be in the form of developing model reg ional and multistate agreements as well as setting minimum standar ds for this method of compliance. In addition, given the complexity of interstate issues, BCSE recommends that the regi onal EPA offices convene stakeholders to address im plementation questions including the importance of p redictable siting and permitting processes for new energy infrastructure that will enable compliance. Implementation will prove diffi cult for many states, especially in regards to inte rstate crediting, and leadership at the regional level will likely prove helpful to states and affected stakeholders.

Further, the guidance provided by EPA should indica te that regional or multi-state agreements can have varying degrees of formality. For example, states could trade, ave rage or otherwise allocate emissions and emissions rates based on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). [4] States interested in collaboration should not hav e to submit a joint compliance plan nor should their arrangements have to be as thorough or as formal as regional agreemen ts such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Additio nally, if states opt for a multi-state compliance o ption, EPA should clarify if partnering states must be adjacent to ea ch other to be considered to be within the same reg ion.

There are many options available to states to demon strate cooperative compliance planning. It is crit ical to ensure this is clear to states as they craft their plans.

**1.3 Accounting of Interstate Renewable Elec tricity Imports and Exports, and Energy Efficiency** 5 BCSE agrees with EPA’s proposal that a state should be able tak e into account all of the carbon emission reduction s from renewable energy measures implemented by the state, whether they occur in the state or in other states . The Clean Power Plan offers a number of options states have w hen considering potential approaches for the treatm ent of these emission reduction activities. In general, consist ent with one of the options set forth in the propos ed rule, the implementing state or entity (i.e., states or entit ies that create the measure that led to the product ion of the energy)
should be able to claim the environmental attribute s of purchased renewable electricity from out-of-st ate generation, regardless of where it occurs, in its state complia nce plan.

With respect to multi-state or regional compliance plans, the Council agrees that states should be abl e to address the crediting of the interstate effects of renewable en ergy through cooperative agreements between states and regional determinations. This gives flexibility to the stat es to choose from a variety of pathways to credit e mission reductions in a manner that best addresses how they want to distr ibute credits and likely will encourage multi-state or regional compliance approaches.

BCSE encourages EPA to provide further guidance in the final rule on the crediting of the interstate e ffects of emission reductions. In particular, clarification should be provided on how states should avoid double countin g in instances in
which one state claims credit for ren ewable generation and another state that holds the environmental attributes of the same energy also claims credit. To that end, the C ouncil recommends that the Clean Power Plan encoura ge states to develop or participate in an environmental creditin g accounting system for renewable energy. If a sta te chooses not to do so, EPA should only allow a state to include ren ewable energy MWhs in its compliance plan if it can demonstrate
entities in the state have submitted environmental attributes (i.e., credits) for those MWhs. BCSE be lieves that these modifications should resolve the uncertainty create d by the proposed rule and provide a strong signal to renewable energy developers and purchasers that their existin g and future contracts for the environmental attr ibutes of the energy will be honored. The Council also requests that th e EPA encourage the expansion of the existing frame work for tracking and crediting of renewable energy to an even larger footprint in order to further enable the verificat ion and quantification of emission reductions from renewabl e energy.

For energy efficiency activities, EPA should consid er defining compliance crediting mechanisms similar to Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). Counting verifiable em ission reductions due to energy efficiency projects would provide
similar benefits for the Clean Power Plan.

Of note, EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) on State Plan Considerations suggests an asymmetric ap proach to energy efficiency as compared to renewable energy. [5] The TSD suggests that for renewable energy, the s tate that implements the renewable energy measure should be a ble to take credit for emissions reductions regardl ess of whether the reductions occur. However, the same TSD sugges ts that states implementing energy efficiency shoul d only be
credited for emissions avoided within the state. B CSE suggests that energy efficiency and renewable e nergy be treated in a similar fashion with respect to interstate acc ounting. EPA should provide guidance for allowing states to take full credit for both energy efficiency and renewable ene rgy or other low- and zero-carbon power resulting i n interstate
emissions avoidance.

**1.4 Incentives for Immediate Action to Redu ce Emissions** 

EPA needs to clarify the compliance period in order to ensure there is no disincentive to make investm ents in clean energy and energy efficiency before the start of th e interim compliance period in 2020. States should be given flexibility with respect to meeting targets over a multi-year p eriod, but the compliance schedule should ensure em ission reductions are secured as soon as possible and that state plans include provisions to correct shortfal ls.

EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction ac tions (i.e., from increasing existing policies, new policies and/or adding new qualifying facilities) taken after a fin al state plan is submitted to EPA, and before the b eginning of the plan performance period (2020), to count toward achievem ent of the state's emissions goals. This would hel p ensure that states have an incentive to engage in carbon reduct ion measures prior to that period and get a jump on being better positioned to achieve their final compliance goals.6 There are two areas related to energy efficiency th at also need a more clear explanation. First, EPA assumed in its drafting of the plan that energy efficiency measure s are sustained on an average of ten years. BCSE members encourage EPA to permit credit for the full term of the contr act or for a longer period of time if so decided by a state.

Second, in the proposed rule, in the section regard ing “actions” taken under existing “requirements, p rograms, and
measures” [6] after the rule’s proposal (June 2, 2014) would be creditable in 2020. This could be interpreted to a llow credit for buildings that have been built under out dated building codes and standards. To remedy this , EPA could use a baseline building code standard using such standard s that are place in 2014.

**1.5 Benchmarking Progress during Interim Co mpliance Period (2020-2029)** 

BCSE and its members appreciate the flexibility giv en to states under the proposed rule. However, the Council advises the EPA to request a mid-point review or evaluation of state progress towards meeting its goals and pl an implementation. This will allow states to more eff ectively plan and comply with the rule. It will al so create certainty for stakeholders such as affected electricity generatin g units (EGUs), relevant state agencies, and other affected entities that may be impacted by state compliance plans. In addition, this flexibility will give states and EP A an opportunity to take corrective measures as needed throughout the c ompliance period in a timely and cost-effective man ner.

Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, under which EP A is proposing to regulate carbon emissions from ne w fossil-fired power plants, directs the agency, at least every ei ght years, to review and, if appropriate, revise fe deral emission standards of performance for such sources to accoun t for new technology developments. While Section 1 11(d), which applies to existing fossil- fired power plants, does not require regular review and revision, nothing in the statute prohibits EPA from instituting such a review of periodic revi ew for those sources to ensure that they also accou nt for new technology developments. To that end, EPA should c onsider committing to review the BSER and resulting state targets for existing sources at least every eight years.

**1.6 Request for Inclusion of Updated Data**

It is critical that the EPA utilize up-to-date data in the development of the Clean Power Plan in orde r to enable more accurate compliance planning. As the rule is curre ntly written, out-of-date data is sometimes used wh en more current information is available. For example, in terms of solar, the data used does not reflect current sola r capacity or market projections. Today’s solar capacity is already exc eeding the estimates the EPA has used. This is als o the case for other resources such as hydropower.



### 2. Section 2 – Industry Specific Comments

**2.1 Renewable Energy**

Renewable energy technologies play an increasingly important role in the US energy mix and BCSE apprec iates the recognition that EPA provides for many of these tec hnologies as compliance options under the proposed rule. However, there are a number of areas under the rule as it pe rtains to renewable energy's role in compliance tha t need further
clarification and refinement.

**2.1.1 Include Alternative Approach under Build ing Block Three in Final Rule** 

The BCSE does not provide comments on the range of issues related to EPA’s approach to establishing th e BSER under the proposed Clean Power Plan. However, should EPA follow a system-wide approach to setting the BSER, the BCSE is in favor of the alternative (technical and economic) r enewable energy Building Block 3 approach included in the June 2 Technical Supporting Documents, with the modificati on detailed in the October 28th Notice of Data Avai lability (NODA)
to calculate the economic renewable resource on a r egional instead of a state-by-state basis. The reg ionalized NODA7 technical and economic approach is vastly superior to the other proposed methods for calculating renew able energy for purposes of the BSER.

The Council suggests, however, that EPA make improv ements to this approach to make it more accurately reflect the cost-effective level of renewable energy deployment that can be achieved u nder the BSER, including (but not limited to): (1) remove the “technical resource” step in which i t imposes an arbitrary cap on the percentage of the technical renewable resource that can be developed in a state or region; (2) in quantifying which renewable ener gy resources are economic, EPA should begin with current, real-world data on the cost of renewable energy technologies; (3) for projecting changes in the economics and performance of renewable energy through the year 2030, EPA sho uld rely on the detailed and thoroughly peer-reviewed cost and performance projections developed through the Depar tment of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory ; (4) in its economic modeling, EPA should not impo se a firm cap on the percentage of variable (wind and solar) rene wable energy that can be deployed in a state or reg ion, but rather should economically model the cost of renewable cur tailment that could occur at extremely high renewab le energy penetrations; and (5) changes to the generation mix and other power system changes that are expected t o occur between now and 2030, including those that are trig gered by the provisions of 111(d) itself, should al so be included in the analysis of the economics of higher renewable p enetrations.

EPA should exclude the technical potential benchmar k from the alternative approach and rely solely on the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) model results, which would pro duce a more accurate representation of likely futur e development. The EPA has previously relied on the IPM model to analyze the impact of other air emissi ons policies on the US electric power sector, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (C SAPR), the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the proposed C arbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants. [7] Therefore, there is precedent for relying solely on the IPM mo del when setting renewable targets for each state.

**2.1.2 Support the Full Potential of Renewable Energy Technologies as Compliance Tools** 

The full set of renewable energy technologies shoul d be eligible as compliance options and given full compliance credit under the final rule. In addition, EPA should reco gnize the accounting and definitions of eligible re newable energy technologies in each state.

**2.1.3 Hydropower**

In order to account for the full potential of emiss ions reductions from clean energy sources, hydropow er must be treated equitably compared to other forms of renewa ble energy and denoted as a compliance option for states. Currently, hydropower is not included in B uilding Block 3 and it is not clear whether states can use hydropower as a compliance option. Hydropower is the largest source of renewable electricity in the US, regularl y avoiding approximately 180 to 220 million tons of carbon emi ssions per year. In addition, hydropower (and pump ed storage) plays an important role in ensuring grid reliabilit y. As a flexible baseload source of power, hydropow er generation is a critical integrator of intermittent renewable energ y generation and also allows asset owners to utiliz e fossil generation resources more efficiently, reducing emissions outp ut even further.

Simply stated, meeting EPA’s targets will be signif icantly challenged without hydropower’s current and future contributions to a clean energy future. For the Cl ean Power Plan to be successful, ensuring the prote ction and preservation of generation from the nation's existi ng hydropower facilities, as well as promoting new development, is
critical.

Under the current construction, the proposed rule a ppears to undervalue hydropower's clean air benefit s and future growth potential. It is important to note that the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has ident ified significant opportunities for development in the hydropower sec tor. In an April 2012 study, the DOE estimated 12 GW of hydropower potential at non-powered dams across the US. [8] In a recent April 2014 study, the DOE also estima ted over 65 gigawatts (GW) of potential new stream-reach hyd ropower development. [9] In response to these results, the DOE has launched a Hydropower Vision initiative to crea te a roadmap for realizing this growth. [10]8 As the EPA moves forward on the rule, it should pro vide clear guidance and direction to the states on the value of hydropower to meeting the goals of the Clean Power Plan. EPA must also ensure that hydropower is trea ted equitably under the final rule and included as an eligible co mpliance option in state plans. BCSE understands t hat the National Hydropower Association and other industry members w ill comment further on the role of hydropower under the Clean Power Plan. BCSE directs you to those comments for further information.

**2.1.4 Biomass**

Biomass energy plays an important role in the mix o f energy sources helping to reduce US GHG emissions . The White House, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB), and the international scientific community have all rec ognized that sustainable biomass can be an important source of l ow-carbon energy, particularly waste biomass and re sidues from sustainable forestry management and forest products manufacturing. These energy sources provide consi stent, baseload, renewable sources of energy and should be given a clear pathway for utilization under the pr oposed rule. Biomass energy is recognized in nearly every state that has a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS ). Failure to adequately credit the carbon mitigation attributes of low-carbon sustainable biomass in the final rule could result in state compliance plans that exclude this clean ener gy technology and the potential closure of these fa cilities and a lost opportunity for greater GHG reductions. Additional ly, in order for biomass energy to be given adequat e recognition for its emission reducing benefits, EPA must complete t he biogenic framework that commenced three years ag o. [11]

Additionally, EPA should clarify that states should give full compliance value for all electricity gen erated from renewable energy technologies when determining how to measure compliance with the Clean Power plan’s goals. For instance, all states that define waste-to-energy (WTE) as renewab le give full credit for each megawatt hour of elect ricity generated by WTE, as do federal standards. EPA should make c lear that states have the flexibility and discretio n to value the full electrical generation from renewable sources (such as WTE) toward compliance with the Clean Power Plan

.

**2.1.5 Recognition of Renewable Technologies Di splacing Emissions from Covered Sources for Water a**  **nd Space Heating**

The EPA should allow for renewable energy measures that displace the electricity from covered sources used for water heating and space heating to count under state comp liance plans. This would include geothermal heat p umps, solar heating and cooling, and other renewable energy mea sures that are directly displacing the electricity from covered

sources.

**2.1.6 Distributed Generation, Solar Heating an d Cooling** 

EPA should fully integrate distributed generation s olar into all aspects of the Clean Power Plan. Dis tributed solar is a system of emissions reduction that is technically f easible, is implemented at reasonable cost, is driv ing solar innovation, and does not negatively impact the electric system. Further, distributed solar energy is adequately d emonstrated to
reduce emissions from covered sources. Utilities a re already either directly owning distributed solar or purchasing the renewable energy credits from distributed solar sys tems. There are a number of ways to verify emissio ns reductions
from distributed solar as well. Once the MWh of di stributed solar generation are known, either throug h direct metering and renewable energy credits or the use of a perfor mance estimate tool, the fossil fuel energy that is being displaced by the solar energy can be determined by using either capacity factor emission rates or system average em ission rates.

For compliance planning, in addition to utility-sca le solar PV and Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), the EPA should allow for distributed solar technologies, along with sola r heating and cooling, to count as measures a state can include within a state compliance plan. As mentioned above, EPA should also recognize the a bility of solar heating and cooling measures to displace the electricity that covered sources ma y use for heating and cooling.

**2.1.7 Fuel Cells**9 The EPA should explicitly list fuel cells as a comp liance option under the proposed rule. As a carbon reduction technology, fuel cells provide low- or no-carbon ba seload generation from natural gas or biogas throug h an efficiency non-combustion process. Fuel cells typically reach fuel-to-electricity efficiency of 60 percent; near ly double that of today’s electric grid. Fuel cells not only allow f or reduced carbon emissions, they also virtually el iminate criteria air pollutants. Furthermore, since fuel cells typicall y operate near the point of use, they bypass transm ission systems, reducing or eliminating transmission losses, which currently average 6 percent in the US. As the EPA recognizes, some fuel cells also generate excess heat, which, if cap tured, can increase overall energy efficiency to mo re than 80 percent.

Should the EPA list fuel cells as a compliance opti on it would follow the precedent set by the Califor nia Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2007, which qualified fuel cells as an ‘ultra-clean’ technology under their existing s tandard. It would also follow guidelines set by the New York Public S ervice Commission, which qualified fuel cells as a compliance option
under the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard.

Currently, twenty-two states, two territories, and the District of Columbia have recognized the role f uel cells can play in creating a more sustainable energy infrastructure. Therefore, the final EPA rule should explicitly hig hlight all fuel cells as a compliance option as a way to 1) reduce GHG emiss ions and other pollutants, 2) improve resiliency, a nd 3) utilize domestic energy supplies. These are all goals tha t are also outlined in the President’s Climate Acti on Plan.

**2.2 Energy Efficiency**

Supply-side and demand-side energy efficiency are p rominent compliance tools within the proposed Clean Power Plan. To facilitate the utilization of energy effi ciency in meeting the state standards, BCSE request s that EPA clarify several activities, including incorporation of non- utility rate-payer and private sector energy effici ency investment; providing clear Evaluation, Measurement, and Verifi cation (EM&V) guidelines for states to use when acc ounting for energy efficiency; and, ensuring that the full effi ciency and thermal benefits of combined heat and po wer (CHP) are recognized in the final rule.

**2.2.1 Provide Greater Clarity on EM&V for Dema nd-Side and Supply-Side Energy Efficiency** 

In reviewing the proposal, BCSE believes that there is a need for further information on the EM&V prot ocols available to states to ensure that energy efficiency is eligible and viable as a compliance option under the propos ed Clean Power
Plan.

EM&V guidance may differ between ratepayer programs and projects and non-ratepayer programs and projects. Examples include:



### • Privately-contracted energy savings performance con tracts (ESPCs) and private sector building projects ;



### • State and local level building energy codes, equipm ent standards, weatherization, commissioning and re trofit

programs;



### • Non-ratepayer industrial efficiency and Combined He at and Power (CHP).

Additionally, there must be a balance between enfor ceability, EM&V, and other state plan consideration s to ensure that energy efficiency measures can be accurately counte d but not so rigorous that efficiency as a complian ce option becomes too costly or too cumbersome.

Further, with more than 113 million residences cons uming 22 percent of all U.S. energy, it is importan t that the existing homes in America play a part in meeting targeted em ission reductions. During the past five years, the residential energy efficiency industry has developed capacity, tools a nd infrastructure that enable it to meet strict EM& V. BCSE encourages EPA to include standards and protocols t hat ensure residential energy efficiency can partic ipate in state compliance obligations. [12]

**2.2.2 Include Non-Utility Rate-Payer and Priva te Sector Energy Efficiency Actions as Compliance O**  **ptions**10 The proposed Clean Power Plan incorporates and prov ides information on how utility energy efficiency p rograms can assist states in meeting the proposed standards. H owever, private sector efficiency programs and proj ects that take place outside the regulated utility do not receive the same methodological guidance. Half or more of US energy efficiency investment occurs outside the ratepayer- program framework and thus should be given adequate guidance under the final rule. Examples of private sector d elivered efficiency include projects implemented un der ESPCs, or building projects that a business or city does in s upport of its local goals. EPA should provide appr opriate support and guidance for these initiatives in the final rule.

EPA should permit states to establish a platform to recognize and account for non-rate payment energy efficiency actions that can be used for compliance purposes. For example, Connecticut currently has an RPS that includes a carveout that requires Class III RECs that must be from non-ratepayer programs.

EPA should recognize the characteristics of the dif ferent types of non-utility efficiency resources an d develop rules that enable each resource to contribute fully to the pro posed rule, such as:



### • Building Codes, which are enacted and enforced by state and local g overnments, and can provide the legal certification of savings that EPA and state regulat ors need;



### • Energy Savings Performance Contracts, which are today delivered almost exclusively to pub lic customers, with the guaranteed savings from each project monitored and verified using the International Performance Measur ement and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), can be independe ntly audited by third-party expert consultants, and accepted by public officials;



### • Privately Owned Commercial and Industrial (C/I) Ret rofit Projects, which today implement primarily short payback retrofits, the savings from which can be verified u sing the IPMVP;



### • Building Efficiency Rating Systems, such as the US EPA ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager or the USGBC LEED, which document both the initial savings from building des ign and the continuous improvement of building effi ciency through operations. [13]

**2.2.3 Building Codes**

EPA specifically invited comments on the role build ing energy codes might play in achieving an increas ed annual incremental savings rate. [14] A new Stanford Report on energy efficiency as a key part of state clean energy programs analyzes and makes specific recommendations on poli cies that states are using today to encourage energ y efficiency. [15] The Report’s second of thirteen recommendations is for the adoption and update of energy efficiency building codes:

Energy Efficient Building Codes. States should adopt or update energy efficient buil ding codes following an independent analysis of cost-effectiveness, dist ributional impacts, and other factors. Building en ergy codes are a relatively straightforward and transpar ent energy efficiency strategy. Updating codes is likely
to be most worthwhile in states with the oldest exi sting codes. [16]

A building code is a set of rules that specify stan dards for buildings and non-building structures. There are many different types of building codes, but the ones relevant to t his discussion address energy efficiency. BCSE recommends the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”), wh ich is a model code adopted by many states and muni cipal governments. The IECC establishes minimum design a nd construction requirements for energy efficiency.

There are essentially three facets of energy buildi ng codes that would help to bolster the realization of EPA’s goal of specific reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in the proposed Clean Power Plan. First, states have the authority to adopt building codes, which are generally based on model codes developed by organizations such as Inte rnational Code Council (“ICC”). [17] EPA should give credit in the final Clean Power P lan where states and municipalities adopt the 2012 IECC or some other code of similar rigor and integr ity. Most states have existing building energy codes, bu t they are frequently outdated or in need of improvement. The refore, EPA should also give credit where states up grad e or improve11 and enforce code requirements to reflect the most r ecent model code. Of course, building codes are really only effective when they are consistently and routinely enforced, so credits may be contingent on proof of rigorous s tate enforcement. Similar to adoption and upgrades, enforcement of th e strongest building codes should be recognized by EPA as deserving of credit in the CPP.

Building codes are important because modeling from various sources shows energy savings for residentia l, commercial, and industrial buildings. In addition, the most effective and comprehensive t ool for promoting energy savings is building energy codes. I n that EPA is eager to have EM&V data for such savi ngs, building code adoption can deliver that crucia l data and it is cost-effective and immediately avail able technology. EPA recognizes this in the Preamble to the Proposed
Rule:

If we were to capture the potential for additional policies such as the adoption and enforcement of st ate or local building energy codes, to contribute addit ional reductions in electricity demand beyond those resulting from energy efficiency programs, we could reasonably increase the targeted annual incrementa l savings rate beyond 1.5 percent. [18]

In studies sponsored by the Institute for Electric Innovation (“IEI”) (formerly the Institute for Elec tric Efficiency) and th e ACEEE, electricity savings achieved from improved a doption and enforcement of building energy codes is validated. The estimated electricity savings is significant. The electricity saved under all utility- administered energy efficiency programs in 2012 was 126 terawatt hours (TWh). [19]

Electricity Savings from Building Energy Code Imple mentation

IEI [20 ] ACEEE [21 ]

Residential Code Adoption Scenarios 2012 IECC in 2016

2015 IECC in 2019 2012 IECC in 2016

2021 IECC in 2022 **(2021 IECC is 50% better than 2006 IECC)**

Commercial Code Adoption Scenarios 90.1-2010 in 2015

90.1-2013 in 2018 90.1-2010 in 2016

90.1-2016 in 2020 **(90.1-2016 is 50% better than 90.1-2004)**
2020 Annual Savings 35 TWh
2025 Annual Savings 75 TWh
2030 Annual Savings 155 TWh
2035 Annual Savings 123 TWh12 **2.2.4 Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPCs)**  [22]

The proposed rule is commendable for its flexible design that will enable
states and market actors to utilize the most cost-effective options to reduce power sector GHG emissions,including efforts to increase demandside energy efficiency. Demand-side

e nergy efficiency can be deployed in a variety of ways, through utility programs, direct investment by companies, state led programs, and third-party energy efficiency projects delivered by private-sector energy service companies (ESCOs).

Much of this third-party work is done through performance- based contracts for energy savings, in which the ESCO reduces energy consumption of its customers by installing new energy efficient equipment at their facilities. This investment is paid off over time with the resulting savings from the customers’ utility bill. The performance of the newly installed equipment, and t he resulting energy savings for its customer, is co ntractually guaranteed by the ESCO. The performance of the pro ject is measured and verified (M&V) by professional s, using internationally established protocols. This rigorou s level of M&V is the foundation of the performance -based contract
guarantee.

It appears that the energy efficiency elements of t he proposed Clean Power Plan were developed primari ly with utility energy efficiency programs in mind, despite the fac t that energy efficiency investments through perfor mance contracts approximate those made through utility programs (Se e Figure 1). Expressly allowing performance contra cts to be a compliance option in the Clean Power Plan would sig nificantly enhance state options for low- cost and rigorously verified GHG reductions. It would also bring to the effort those companies most focused on producing energy ef ficiency results.

Including performance contracting projects as an al lowable compliance option for state plans is straig htforward and consistent with the Clean Power Plan. However, add itional guidance is needed for states to feel confi dent that EPA will recognize such projects and allow them to be includ ed in state plans.

As it finalizes the Clean Power Plan, EPA should:



### • Acknowledge that existing performance contracting p rojects could provide substantial contribution to 1 11(d) compliance;



### • Provide guidance to enable states to include energy savings performance contracting in their plans;



### • Clarify how the state plan requirement to identify affected entities applies to performance contractin g projects;



### • Describe approvable approaches for aggregation of p erformance contracting projects;



### • Identify approvable approaches for key compliance c riteria to facilitate inclusion of emission reducti ons from performance contracting projects;13



### • Identify measurement and verification protocols acc eptable for determining energy efficiency savings f rom performance contracting projects;



### • Allow avoided electricity consumption delivered by performance contracting projects, with proper measurement and verification, to count toward 111(d ) compliance;



### • Provide states with flexibility to take credit for emission reductions resulting from performance cont racting projects after the CPP was proposed and before the interim compliance period begins (2020);



### • Resolve the energy efficiency penalty created when energy efficiency projects are implemented in elect ricityimporting states;



### • Support the development and use of single-state and multi-state credit programs and other market-based
systems.

**2.2.5 Recognize Demand Response as Facilitator of Emissions Reductions** 

Demand response can help facilitate emissions reduc tions and has many similarities to energy storage. BCSE urges EPA to recognize demand response, especially when it is evaluating opportunities for compliance options su ch as energy storage. Demand response can be a key facilitator of emissions reductions. For example, demand respo nse can help integrate renewable energy resources and facilitate with load-shifting, which can increase cleaner gen eration. In a more limited set of circumstances demand response can re duce emissions through curtailment, similar to ener gy efficiency
activities. States should be made aware of demand response in which EPA discusses energy storage.

**2.2.6 Recognize the Benefit of Combined Heat a nd Power (CHP) as an Efficiency Compliance Tool** 

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and related technolog ies, such as Waste Heat to Power (WHP) and waste he at recovery, can serve as cost-effective tools to redu cing emissions, both directly at affected power pla nts and by replacing the electricity generated at affected power plants with highly efficient on-site generation at industr ial and other facilities. EPA should provide a clear signal to s tates that these emission reduction strategies are allowed as compliance strategies.

The most important way that EPA can recognize the b enefit of efficient CHP is to ensure that the appli cability criteria for
what is an “affected EGU” under the rule do not ina dvertently sweep in industrial facilities that util ize CHP or WHP technology. Relatedly, EPA should send a clear mes sage to states that because compliance is measured with regard to the emission performance of affected EGUs, states s hould not force emission reductions from industrial CHP facilities that are not the kind of electricity generating uni ts that are the subject of this rulemaking.

Adding or expanding CHP to existing fossil-fuel fir ed EGUs can reduce the emission rate of those EGUs. Adding CHP to existing affected facilities reduces pollution by u sing the energy potential of the fuel input twice o r three times, yielding half to a third of the emissions from separate appl ications. BCSE applauds EPA for acknowledging the emission reducing potential of putting thermal output to productive u se when calculating the emission rate of an affecte d EGU; however, by only allowing states to count 75 percent of that useful output, the Clean Power Plan unnecessarily limits the incentive to add or expand CHP at existing EGUs.

Instead, EPA should include 100 percent of useful t hermal output when calculating affected EGU emissio n rates. EPA should also make clear that adding CHP to an existi ng affected coal facility that results in efficienc y gains beyond the 6 percent heat rate improvement used to calculate sta te goals is an important and approvable compliance opportunity.

In addition, adding or expanding CHP at facilities other than affected EGUs—such as food processing, h ospitals, industrial production and manufacturing, and commer cial buildings—can measurably reduce demand for and therefore emissions from affected EGUs. The proposed rule ac knowledges some of the benefits of CHP, including W HP, but needs to provide more clarity that CHP at a facility othe r than an affected EGU, qualifies as an efficiency resource. The regulatory benefit of new and expanded CHP at non-E GU facilities can be treated similarly to EPA’s pro posed accounting for end-use energy efficiency. The electric and th ermal output of such facilities can easily be quant ified and included in the compliance calculation in the same way as energ y efficiency or other clean generating resources. EPA should14 provide clear guidance to the states that expanding CHP at facilities other than affected EGUs is an a pprovable and costeffective compliance tool.

**2.3 Natural Gas**

Natural gas has played a large role in GHG emission s reductions in the US over the last several years and the proposed Clean Power Plan looks to natural gas to continue t his trend. According to the **Sustainable Energy in America Factbook**

, natural gas provided the US with 27 percent of its total energy supply, and 28 percent of US electrici ty in 2013, up from 22 percent in 2012. [23]

The use of natural gas for power generation has pro ven to be an effective method of lowering carbon di oxide emissions. According to the Energy Information Adm inistration, US energy-related carbon dioxide emiss ions have declined in four of the last seven years since 2007 and are down a total of 10 percent from 2005 level s due in part to increased natural gas-fired generation. [24] In the proposed rule’s base case year of 2012, po wer generation from combined cycle units and other natural gas generato rs reached an all-time high of 30 percent and contr ibuted to carbon dioxide emissions falling to a 20 year low. [25] Importantly, these reductions demonstrate the abi lity of the natural gas industry and competitive markets to reliably delive r emission reductions without additional regulation s. Natural gas generation has a proven track record of lowering em issions and its inclusion in the proposed rule reco gnizes its
environmental benefits.

**2.3.1 Recognition of Natural Gas Markets**

The US possesses abundant natural gas supplies capa ble of meeting greater demand from the electric sec tor and other industries. In order to facilitate the greater use of natural gas-fired generation, and its correspon ding emissions benefits, competitive natural gas markets must rema in liquid to aid efficient delivery of natural gas to customers. A critical component of a healthy and liquid natural gas market is adequate infrastructure and an effici ent and predictable siting and permitting process for the new infrastru cture that will be needed in response to shifts in the sources of natural gas supply and demand.

With increasing supplies of natural gas coming online, n ew pipeline capacity will play an essential role in transporting gas to market. A recent study released by the Intersta te Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Found ation found that new pipelines will need to accommodate an additiona l 43 billion cubic feet of gas per day by 2035 and annual capital expenditures of $14 billion are necessary over the same time frame to support new natural gas infrastr ucture. [26] The natural gas industry has shown its ability to quick ly expand and improve natural gas infrastructure in the past and can continue to do so given clear market signals prompt ing investment. Regulators, including the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), should remove any structural bar riers that inhibit the construction of new natural gas pipelines and should support market stakeholders as they seek to ensure adequate and timely infrastructure is in pla ce to support the greater use of natural gas.

In addition to building new infrastructure, the nat ural gas market features a wide array of contractin g tools that facilitate efficient and timely natural gas use. A sset management agreements, pipeline park and loan services, storage contracts, and no notice service are just a few opt ions at the disposal of customers. These tools whe n secured in advance as part of a diverse procurement strategy c an assist generators in reliably meeting their obli gations. Further, physical and financial hedging tools can help mitig ate price swings and exposure to the spot market. Taken together, these procurement tools can assist power market par ticipants in accessing robust and reliable supplies of natural gas for
their needs.

**2.3.2 Incorporate Distributed Energy that Uses Natural Gas as Compliance Option for States** 

i. Recognize the Benefit of natural gas , all-electric Fuel Cells and Combined Heat and Pow er (CHP) as Compliance
Tools15 EPA should provide a clear signal to states that na tural gas, all-electric Fuel Cells and CHP emission reduction strategies are allowed as compliance strategies. The proposed rule acknowledges some of CHP’s benefits, but need s to provide more clarity that these benefits qualify as an effi ciency resource. Additionally, EPA should give sim ilar recognition for natural gas, all-electric Fuel Cells which re-use h eat internally to generate electricity more efficie ntly and can be sited at facilities regardless of their thermal load and dem and. EPA also should recognize the entire portfol io of thermal renewables: biogas and biomass pellets, solar therm al, geothermal and geothermal heat pumps, etc.

ii. Direct Use of Natural Gas and Propan e for Heating Water and Space

In many states, direct use of natural gas and propa ne in homes and businesses for home heating and oth er thermal uses (e.g. water heating, cooking, clothes drying) can o ffer efficiency savings and GHG reductions compared to electric appliances. Depending on the emissions profile of the electricity generation in a state and the effic iencies of the electric and gas options being considered, using natural gas directly to serve thermal loads can avoid the sign ificant efficiency losses that occur when electricity is generated fro m higher emitting sources in a large power plant, a nd transmitted across power lines

. According to the American Gas Association, in some cases, using standard electric appliances for thermal needs can waste nearly 50 percent of the in put natural gas energy, subsequently requiring that much more fuel to be combusted to serve the same energy needs. [27]

Calculating the net carbon emissions reduction from grid power plants that would be achieved by replac ing a given number of water heaters or furnaces (e.g. in a util ity rebate program) can be done using the same mode ls of regional grid power (the mix of coal, natural gas, and renew ables) as used for other outside the fence efficien cy measures, along
with measurement or estimates of the on-site GHG em issions.

In states where net emission reductions can be achi eved with such direct use of natural gas and propan e, appliance rebate programs could also provide an option for st ates to reduce the cost of compliance while providi ng significant other benefits for their citizens, including lower energy costs and in some cases better resilience in the event of severe storms. Rebates for switching from electric to nat ural gas or propane furnaces and water heaters are currently utilized in Oklahoma, Oregon and Florida.

Conclusion

BCSE appreciates the opportunity to provide you wit h its comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan and hopes these
views will be useful as the EPA reviews and finaliz es the rule. BCSE would like to be viewed as a res ource to EPA during this process to help ensure the full portfolio of c lean energy technologies and their full emissions r eduction potential are recognized in Clean Power Plan compliance planning. Please contact the Council on the issues discusse d if there are questions.

Sincerely,

Lisa Jacobson, President Business Council for Sustainable Energy

Lisa Jacobson | President Business Council for Sustainable Energy 505 9th Street, NW | Suite 800 | Washington, DC 200 04 202.785.0507 | 202.785.0514 (fax) | www.bcse.org16

[1] **Sustainable Energy in America Factbook** . Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Bloomber g New Energy Finance. February 2014. http://www.bcse.org/sustainableenergyfactbook.html

[2] Carbon Pollution Emissions Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Un its; Proposed Rule. June 18, 2014. 79 Fed. Reg. 34,902-34,903 (pg 74-75).

[3] Robert R. Nordhaus and Ilan W. Gutherz **, Regulation of CO2 Emissions From Existing Power P lants Under §111(d) of the Clean Air Act: Program**  **Design and Statutory Authority** , 44 Envtl. L. Rep. 10366, 10383-10385 (2014). http://64.106.168.122/files/9035_44%2010366.pdf

[4] The MOU might indicate that states party to the MOU both use same basis (mass- or rate-), have consiste nt evaluation, measurement, and verification (EM&V) and emissions quantification app roaches, and have developed some mechanism for the trading, averaging, and allotting of

emissions.

[5] EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) on State Pl an Considerations, page 88 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014- 06/documents/20140602tsd-state-plan-considerations. pdf

[6] Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Pla nts: Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissio ns From Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units. June 2, 2014. Se ction §60.5750.

[7] Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants. June 2014. Page 3-3. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/111dpropos alRIAfinal0602.pdf

[8] An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered D ams in the United States. US Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Wind and Water Power Program. April 2012. http://nhaap.ornl.gov/system/files/NHAAP_NPD_FY11_F inal_Report.pdf

[9] New Stream-reach Development: A Comprehensive Asse ssment of Hydropower Energy Potential in the United States, US Department of Energy http://nhaap.ornl.gov/sites/default/files/ORNL_NSD_ FY14_Final_Report.pdf

[10] Please see link for more information, http://energ y.gov/eere/water/new-vision-united-states-hydropowe r
[11] Business Council for Sustainable Energy Comments to EPA Regarding Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR2013-0495 – New Source Power Plants. May 9, 2014. http://www.bcse.org/images/2014CleanAir/BCSE 111b C omments_final.pdf

[12] Please see the comments submitted by Efficiency Fi rst and the Home Performance Coalition for addition al details.

[13] Letter to EPA on Private & Non-Utility Energy Effi ciency in Proposed Clean Power Plan http://www.bcse.org/images/2014CleanAir/Private%20a nd%20non-utility%20EE%20letter%20for%20signature.pd f

[14] (79 Fed. Reg. at 34,875).

[15] Stanford, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy a nd Finance, Hoover Institution: Shultz-Stephenson T ask Force on Energy Policy, “The State Clean Energy Cookbook: A Dozen R ecipes for State Action on Energy Efficiency and Re newable Energy,” 2014.

[16] **Ibid** . at p. 6.

[17] The International Code Council is a member-focused association. It is dedicated to developing model codes and standards used in the design, build and compliance process to construct safe, sustainable, affordable and resili ent structures ( http://www.iccsafe.org/abouticc/Pages/default.aspx ). Internationally, code officials recognize the ne ed for a modern, up-to date energy conservation code addressing the design of energy-efficient building envelopes and install ation of energy efficient mechanical, lighting and power systems through requ irements emphasizing performance. Introduced in 199 8 and continuing the leadership role in energy codes that the ICC le gacy organizations started over 20 years before tha t, the International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”) addresses energy efficie ncy on several fronts including cost savings, reduc ed energy usage, conservation of natural resources and the impact of energy usage on the environment.

[18] 79 Fed. Reg. at 34,872.

[19] Institute for Electric Innovation, “Summary of Ele ctric Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Sav ings, Expenditures, and Budgets,” Issue Brief, March 2014.

[20] Institute for Electric Innovation, “Factors Affect ing Electricity Consumption in the U.S. (2010-2035) ,” March 2013.

[21] American Council for an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), “Change Is in the Air: How States Can Harn ess Energy Efficiency to Strengthen the Economy and Reduce Air Pollution, ” April 2014.

[22] ESCO Coalition Technical Paper on Performance Cont racting in EPA’s Section 111(d) Proposed Rule, Octo ber 14, 2014. Prepared by AJW, Inc.

[23] Sustainable Energy in American Factbook 2014 editio n, Bloomberg New Energy Finance http://www.bcse.org/factbook/pdfs/2014%20Sustainabl e%20Energy%20in%20America%20Factbook.pdf

[24] U.S. Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions-2013, Energy Information Administration, October,2014 (http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions/carbon/pd f/2013_co2analysis.pdf)

[25] Energy-related Carbon Dioxide Emissions Declined i n 2012”, Energy Information Administration, April 2 013 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=1069 1

[26] North American Midstream Infrastructure through 203 5: Capitalizing on Our Energy Abundance, INGAA Foun dation, March 2014.

[27] 2014 Playbook, American Gas Association http://www.aga.org/ourissues/playbook/Documents/201 4AGA_Playbook_FINAL.pdf