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 response to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2013-0602. I apologize for the 

inconvenience, please use the attached PDF and do not hesitate to contact Lisa Jacobson, BCSE President, with any 

questions regarding this submission.

-----------

November 19, 2014

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator, United States Environmental Protection 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 Clean 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 or the Council) appreciates the opportunity to provide the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan. The Council offers its views 

with the aim of improving the final rule and to assist states as they begin the process of implementation planning. 

BCSE is a coalition of companies and trade associations from the energy efficiency, natural gas, and renewable energy 

sectors, and also includes independent electric power producers, investor-owned utilities, public power, commercial 

end-users, and environmental and energy market service providers. Founded in 1992, the Council advocates for policies 

at the state, national, and international levels that increase the use of commercially-available clean energy technologies, 

products, and services. The coalition's broad-based business membership is united around the revitalization of the 

economy and the creation of a secure and sustainable energy future for America. 

The Council has provided comments to EPA on a range of air quality and climate change initiatives since its 

founding. With regard to reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Council supports market-based programs that 

utilize performance-based metrics. Further, BCSE represents a portfolio of commercially-available resources, 

technologies, and services that are proven to reduce air pollution and GHG emissions in an affordable and reliable 

manner. These solutions should be used to their full potential as compliance options. Of note, as a diverse coalition, not 

all members take positions or endorse all the issues discussed in this submission.

 
2

A Changing US Energy Landscape

 

The Council, in partnership with Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), produces an annual Sustainable Energy 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 Factbook 

include: 

 

• The country’s total annual energy consumption in 2013 was 5.0 percent below 2007 levels, due in large measure 

to advances in energy efficiency. This trend was in part prompted by the economic downturn of 2008-09, but as 

economic growth has returned energy use has not grown at a commensurate rate. The net result is a more 

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 major 

energy sources such as coal and oil have experienced significant declines. Natural gas production and 

consumption hit all-time highs in 2013, and natural gas-fired power plants provided 28 percent of US electricity 

in 2013, up from 22 percent in 2007. Renewable electricity generation, including power from large hydro 

projects, grew from 8.3 percent to 12.9 percent over 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 facilities.

• 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 PPAs 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 technologies.

• Energy efficiency policy is maturing, and investments are ramping up to the benefit of buildings and 

industries. As of 2013, 26 states had energy efficiency resource standards (EERS); 31 states, covering 77 percent 

of the US population, had legislation enabling energy efficiency deployment to be paid through property tax 

bills, or property assessed clean energy (PACE) financing (although PACE financing is not yet available in most of 

these states); and 7 percent of US commercial sector floor space was covered under policies requiring buildings 

to achieve energy efficiency benchmarks or mandating disclosure of energy consumption. Energy efficiency 

financing across two major frameworks – utility spending to comply with resource standards and energy service 

companies’ (ESCOs) investments – has been on an upward trend and amounted to more than $12bn in 

2012. Energy intensity in key industrial sectors has been falling; while manufacturing industrial output 

decreased by 3 percent over 2002-10, energy consumption fell by 17 percent. 

• Transportation is being revolutionized by new policies, technologies, and fuels. Federal corporate average fuel 

economy (CAFE) standards for cars are set to double by 2025, relative to 2011 levels. Medium- and heavy-duty 

vehicle fuel economy standards have been implemented with more stringent standards in the works, while

fleets have adopted numerous voluntary measures. Sales of hybrids and plug-in electric vehicles are rising and 

totalled nearly 600,000 vehicles in 2013 (3.8 percent of US passenger vehicle sales). Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles 

(FCEVs) are coming to market and hydrogen infrastructure investments are being made. Additionally, eight 

states recently signed a MOU to deploy more than 3 million zero emission vehicles by 2025. Natural gas use in 

the transport sector is up 33 percent since 2007. These developments, along with a growing role for biofuels, 

have driven gasoline consumption down 7.7 percent since 2005. Information and communications technology 

(ICT) advances have been critical from individual vehicle efficiency to logistics software and GPS applications to 

elements of evolving intelligent transportation systems, 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 to 
3

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 the Proposed Clean Power Plan

BCSE submitted comments to the EPA on December 13, 2013 offering preliminary recommendations for the design of 

regulations for carbon emissions from existing power plants. BCSE recommended that the proposed rule: 

 

• Allow energy efficiency (including combined heat and power (CHP), waste heat to power, and utilization of 

waste heat recovery), the full set of renewable energy options, as well as natural gas and propane to be 

made eligible and viable as compliance options.

• Provide flexibility to states to develop and implement cost-effective compliance plans.

• Adopt a system-wide approach to compliance that permits outside the fence activities to contribute toward 

meeting the state targets.

• Provide guidance on Evaluation, Monitoring, and Verification (EM&V) protocols that give confidence to 

states and other actors that energy efficiency, renewable energy, and natural gas can be used as compliance 

tools. 

• Recognize programs and policies at state and regional 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 Power Plan in June 2014. Further, the timeline set for finalization 

and implementation of the standards show that the United States seeks to take meaningful steps to address climate 

change at the federal level. 

As data from the past several years has revealed, the mix of the US energy supply is changing rapidly, with low-carbon 

sources gaining market share. At the same time, energy consumption is down, despite overall economic growth. This 

demonstrates that the US can reduce GHG emissions without harming the US economy. The proposed Clean Power Plan 

recognizes these trends and seeks to build upon them. 

BCSE appreciates that several of its preliminary recommendations were considered and incorporated into the proposed 

Clean Power Plan. Of note, the proposal recognizes: 

 

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

• Prior investments and established programs that have reduced emissions; and 

• State flexibility in designing and implementing emission reductions, which is critical for cost-effective 

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 incorporating output-based metrics in establishing the Best System of 

Emissions Reduction (BSER). In addition, BCSE appreciates 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 energy 

efficiency measures may be incorporated into a rate-based approach through an adjustment or tradable credit 

system. This approach should be applied to all demand-side solutions, including fuel cells and CHP. 

 

While the BCSE has not provided comments on the range of issues related to EPA’s approach to establishing the BSER 

under the proposed Clean Power Plan, EPA’s inclusion of the system-wide approach to compliance is fundamental to 

increasing the use of clean energy technologies and substantially lowering emissions. Without this, the states would 
4

have fewer options for compliance and less flexibility. Utilizing a diverse portfolio of clean energy options available for 

compliance will make the US economy stronger, reduce emissions and increase resiliency. BCSE notes the 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 investments and initiatives that have generated GHG emission 

reductions, and encourages EPA to do so it its final rule. 

 

In reviewing the proposal, there are a number of areas that the BCSE seeks further clarification. Please see the following 

sections that outline the Council's questions and recommendations. 

BCSE Comments on Design Elements in the Proposed Clean 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 aspects of the proposal that inform compliance planning. BCSE 

encourages EPA to consider the comments submitted by its members on other aspects of the proposal as well as 

technical issues related to their sectors. 

 

1. Section 1 – Cross-Cutting Topic Areas

 

1.1 Affirm that Non-Building Block Technologies, Resources, and Practices are Eligible as Compliance Options

 

There are many readily-available clean energy technologies, resources, and practices that can be used by states to 

reduce GHG emissions. EPA should affirmatively indicate that technologies, resources, and practices that 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 potential to give states additional flexibility, while also minimizing the 

risks of double counting carbon reduction gains. To facilitate consideration of regional approaches, EPA should develop 

guidance for states and offer technical assistance. This could be in the form of developing model regional and multistate agreements as well as setting minimum standards for this method of compliance. In addition, given the complexity 

of interstate issues, BCSE recommends that the regional EPA offices convene stakeholders to address implementation 

questions including the importance of predictable siting and permitting processes for new energy infrastructure that will 

enable compliance. Implementation will prove difficult for many states, especially in regards to interstate crediting, and 

leadership at the regional level will likely prove helpful to states and affected stakeholders. 

Further, the guidance provided by EPA should indicate that regional or multi-state agreements can have varying degrees 

of formality. For example, states could trade, average or otherwise allocate emissions and emissions rates based on a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).[4] States interested in collaboration should not have to submit a joint 

compliance plan nor should their arrangements have to be as thorough or as formal as regional agreements such as the 

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Additionally, if states opt for a multi-state compliance option, EPA should 

clarify if partnering states must be adjacent to each other to be considered to be within the same region. 

There are many options available to states to demonstrate cooperative compliance planning. It is critical to ensure this 

is clear to states as they craft their plans. 

1.3 Accounting of Interstate Renewable Electricity Imports and Exports, and Energy Efficiency

 
5

BCSE agrees with EPA’s proposal that a state should be able take into account all of the carbon emission reductions 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 when considering potential approaches for the treatment of these 

emission reduction activities. In general, consistent with one of the options set forth in the proposed rule, the 

implementing state or entity (i.e., states or entities that create the measure that led to the production of the energy) 

should be able to claim the environmental attributes of purchased renewable electricity from out-of-state generation, 

regardless of where it occurs, in its state compliance plan. 

 

With respect to multi-state or regional compliance plans, the Council agrees that states should be able to address the 

crediting of the interstate effects of renewable energy through cooperative agreements between states and regional 

determinations. This gives flexibility to the states to choose from a variety of pathways to credit emission reductions in 

a manner that best addresses how they want to distribute 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 effects of emission 

reductions. In particular, clarification should be provided on how states should avoid double counting in instances in 

which one state claims credit for renewable generation and another state that holds the environmental attributes of the 

same energy also claims credit. To that end, the Council recommends that the Clean Power Plan encourage states to 

develop or participate in an environmental crediting accounting system for renewable energy. If a state chooses not to 

do so, EPA should only allow a state to include renewable 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 believes that these 

modifications should resolve the uncertainty created by the proposed rule and provide a strong signal to renewable 

energy developers and purchasers that their existing and future contracts for the environmental attributes of the energy 

will be honored. The Council also requests that the EPA encourage the expansion of the existing framework for tracking 

and crediting of renewable energy to an even larger footprint in order to further enable the verification and 

quantification of emission reductions from renewable energy. 

 

For energy efficiency activities, EPA should consider defining compliance crediting mechanisms similar to Renewable 

Energy Certificates (RECs). Counting verifiable emission 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 approach to 

energy efficiency as compared to renewable energy. [5] The TSD suggests that for renewable energy, the state that 

implements the renewable energy measure should be able to take credit for emissions reductions regardless of whether 

the reductions occur. However, the same TSD suggests that states implementing energy efficiency should only be 

credited for emissions avoided within the state. BCSE suggests that energy efficiency and renewable energy be treated 

in a similar fashion with respect to interstate accounting. EPA should provide guidance for allowing states to take full 

credit for both energy efficiency and renewable energy or other low- and zero-carbon power resulting in interstate 

emissions avoidance. 

1.4 Incentives for Immediate Action to Reduce Emissions

EPA needs to clarify the compliance period in order to ensure there is no disincentive to make investments in clean 

energy and energy efficiency before the start of the interim compliance period in 2020. States should be given flexibility 

with respect to meeting targets over a multi-year period, but the compliance schedule should ensure emission 

reductions are secured as soon as possible and that state plans include provisions to correct shortfalls. 

 

EPA should allow credit for new carbon reduction actions (i.e., from increasing existing policies, new policies and/or 

adding new qualifying facilities) taken after a final state plan is submitted to EPA, and before the beginning of the plan 

performance period (2020), to count toward achievement of the state's emissions goals. This would help ensure that 

states have an incentive to engage in carbon reduction 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 that also need a more clear explanation. First, EPA assumed in its 

drafting of the plan that energy efficiency measures are sustained on an average of ten years. BCSE members encourage 

EPA to permit credit for the full term of the contract or for a longer period of time if so decided by a state. 

 

Second, in the proposed rule, in the section regarding “actions” taken under existing “requirements, programs, and 

measures”[6] after the rule’s proposal (June 2, 2014) would be creditable in 2020. This could be interpreted to allow 

credit for buildings that have been built under outdated building codes and standards. To remedy this, EPA could use a 

baseline building code standard using such standards that are place in 2014. 

1.5 Benchmarking Progress during Interim Compliance Period (2020-2029)

BCSE and its members appreciate the flexibility given 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 plan 

implementation. This will allow states to more effectively plan and comply with the rule. It will also create certainty for 

stakeholders such as affected electricity generating 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 EPA an opportunity to 

take corrective measures as needed throughout the compliance period in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act, under which EPA is proposing to regulate carbon emissions from new fossil-fired 

power plants, directs the agency, at least every eight years, to review and, if appropriate, revise federal emission 

standards of performance for such sources to account for new technology developments. While Section 111(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 review for those sources to ensure that they also account for new 

technology developments. To that end, EPA should consider 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 order to enable more 

accurate compliance planning. As the rule is currently written, out-of-date data is sometimes used when more current 

information is available. For example, in terms of solar, the data used does not reflect current solar capacity or market 

projections. Today’s solar capacity is already exceeding the estimates the EPA has used. This is also 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 appreciates the 

recognition that EPA provides for many of these technologies as compliance options under the proposed rule. However, 

there are a number of areas under the rule as it pertains to renewable energy's role in compliance that need further 

clarification and refinement. 

 

2.1.1 Include Alternative Approach under Building Block Three in Final Rule

 

The BCSE does not provide comments on the range of issues related to EPA’s approach to establishing the 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) renewable energy Building Block 3 approach included in the June 2 

Technical Supporting Documents, with the modification detailed in the October 28th Notice of Data Availability (NODA) 

to calculate the economic renewable resource on a regional instead of a state-by-state basis. The regionalized NODA 
7

technical and economic approach is vastly superior to the other proposed methods for calculating renewable energy for 

purposes of the BSER. 

 

The Council suggests, however, that EPA make improvements to this approach to make it more accurately reflect the 

cost-effective level of renewable energy deployment that can be achieved under the BSER, including (but not limited to): 

(1) remove the “technical resource” step in which it 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 energy 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 should rely on 

the detailed and thoroughly peer-reviewed cost and performance projections developed through the Department of 

Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory; (4) in its economic modeling, EPA should not impose a firm cap 

on the percentage of variable (wind and solar) renewable energy that can be deployed in a state or region, but rather 

should economically model the cost of renewable curtailment that could occur at extremely high renewable energy 

penetrations; and (5) changes to the generation mix and other power system changes that are expected to occur 

between now and 2030, including those that are triggered by the provisions of 111(d) itself, should also be included in 

the analysis of the economics of higher renewable penetrations. 

 

EPA should exclude the technical potential benchmark from the alternative approach and rely solely on the Integrated 

Planning Model (IPM) model results, which would produce a more accurate representation of likely future 

development. The EPA has previously relied on the IPM model to analyze the impact of other air emissions policies on 

the US electric power sector, such as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), the Mercury 

and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), and the proposed Carbon Pollution Standards for New Power Plants.[7] Therefore, 

there is precedent for relying solely on the IPM model 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 should be eligible as compliance options and given full compliance credit 

under the final rule. In addition, EPA should recognize the accounting and definitions of eligible renewable energy 

technologies in each state. 

2.1.3 Hydropower

 

In order to account for the full potential of emissions reductions from clean energy sources, hydropower must be 

treated equitably compared to other forms of renewable energy and denoted as a compliance option for 

states. Currently, hydropower is not included in Building 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, regularly avoiding 

approximately 180 to 220 million tons of carbon emissions per year. In addition, hydropower (and pumped storage) 

plays an important role in ensuring grid reliability. As a flexible baseload source of power, hydropower generation is a 

critical integrator of intermittent renewable energy generation and also allows asset owners to utilize fossil generation 

resources more efficiently, reducing emissions output even further. 

 

Simply stated, meeting EPA’s targets will be significantly challenged without hydropower’s current and future 

contributions to a clean energy future. For the Clean Power Plan to be successful, ensuring the protection and 

preservation of generation from the nation's existing hydropower facilities, as well as promoting new development, is 

critical. 

 

Under the current construction, the proposed rule appears to undervalue hydropower's clean air benefits and future 

growth potential. It is important to note that the United States Department of Energy (DOE) has identified significant 

opportunities for development in the hydropower sector. 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 estimated over 

65 gigawatts (GW) of potential new stream-reach hydropower development.[9] In response to these results, the DOE 

has launched a Hydropower Vision initiative to create a roadmap for realizing this growth.[10] 
8

As the EPA moves forward on the rule, it should provide 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 treated equitably 

under the final rule and included as an eligible compliance option in state plans. BCSE understands that the National 

Hydropower Association and other industry members will 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 of 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 recognized that 

sustainable biomass can be an important source of low-carbon energy, particularly waste biomass and residues from 

sustainable forestry management and forest products manufacturing. These energy sources provide consistent, 

baseload, renewable sources of energy and should be given a clear pathway for utilization under the proposed 

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 energy technology and the potential closure of these facilities and a lost 

opportunity for greater GHG reductions. Additionally, in order for biomass energy to be given adequate recognition for 

its emission reducing benefits, EPA must complete the biogenic framework that commenced three years ago.[11]

Additionally, EPA should clarify that states should give full compliance value for all electricity generated 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 renewable give full credit for each megawatt hour of electricity generated 

by WTE, as do federal standards. EPA should make clear that states have the flexibility and discretion 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 Displacing Emissions from Covered Sources for Water and 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 compliance plans. This would include geothermal heat pumps, solar 

heating and cooling, and other renewable energy measures that are directly displacing the electricity from covered 

sources. 

2.1.6 Distributed Generation, Solar Heating and Cooling 

EPA should fully integrate distributed generation solar into all aspects of the Clean Power Plan. Distributed solar is a 

system of emissions reduction that is technically feasible, is implemented at reasonable cost, is driving solar innovation, 

and does not negatively impact the electric system. Further, distributed solar energy is adequately demonstrated to 

reduce emissions from covered sources. Utilities are already either directly owning distributed solar or purchasing the 

renewable energy credits from distributed solar systems. There are a number of ways to verify emissions reductions 

from distributed solar as well. Once the MWh of distributed solar generation are known, either through direct metering 

and renewable energy credits or the use of a performance 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 emission rates.

For compliance planning, in addition to utility-scale solar PV and Concentrated Solar Power (CSP), the EPA should allow 

for distributed solar technologies, along with solar heating and cooling, to count as measures a state can include within a 

state compliance plan. As mentioned above, EPA should also recognize the ability of solar heating and cooling measures 

to displace the electricity that covered sources may use for heating and cooling. 

2.1.7 Fuel Cells
9

The EPA should explicitly list fuel cells as a compliance option under the proposed rule. As a carbon reduction 

technology, fuel cells provide low- or no-carbon baseload generation from natural gas or biogas through an efficiency 

non-combustion process. Fuel cells typically reach fuel-to-electricity efficiency of 60 percent; nearly double that of 

today’s electric grid. Fuel cells not only allow for reduced carbon emissions, they also virtually eliminate criteria air 

pollutants. Furthermore, since fuel cells typically operate near the point of use, they bypass transmission 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 captured, can increase overall energy efficiency to more than 80 percent. 

Should the EPA list fuel cells as a compliance option it would follow the precedent set by the California Air Resources 

Board (CARB) in 2007, which qualified fuel cells as an ‘ultra-clean’ technology under their existing standard. It would 

also follow guidelines set by the New York Public Service 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 fuel cells can play in 

creating a more sustainable energy infrastructure. Therefore, the final EPA rule should explicitly highlight all fuel cells as 

a compliance option as a way to 1) reduce GHG emissions and other pollutants, 2) improve resiliency, and 3) utilize 

domestic energy supplies. These are all goals that are also outlined in the President’s Climate Action Plan. 

2.2 Energy Efficiency 

 

Supply-side and demand-side energy efficiency are prominent compliance tools within the proposed Clean Power 

Plan. To facilitate the utilization of energy efficiency in meeting the state standards, BCSE requests that EPA clarify 

several activities, including incorporation of non-utility rate-payer and private sector energy efficiency investment; 

providing clear Evaluation, Measurement, and Verification (EM&V) guidelines for states to use when accounting for 

energy efficiency; and, ensuring that the full efficiency and thermal benefits of combined heat and power (CHP) are 

recognized in the final rule. 

 

2.2.1 Provide Greater Clarity on EM&V for Demand-Side and Supply-Side Energy Efficiency

 

In reviewing the proposal, BCSE believes that there is a need for further information on the EM&V protocols available to 

states to ensure that energy efficiency is eligible and viable as a compliance option under the proposed 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 contracts (ESPCs) and private sector building projects;

• State and local level building energy codes, equipment standards, weatherization, commissioning and retrofit 

programs;

• Non-ratepayer industrial efficiency and Combined Heat and Power (CHP).

 

Additionally, there must be a balance between enforceability, EM&V, and other state plan considerations to ensure that 

energy efficiency measures can be accurately counted but not so rigorous that efficiency as a compliance option 

becomes too costly or too cumbersome. 

 

Further, with more than 113 million residences consuming 22 percent of all U.S. energy, it is important that the existing 

homes in America play a part in meeting targeted emission reductions. During the past five years, the residential energy 

efficiency industry has developed capacity, tools and infrastructure that enable it to meet strict EM&V. BCSE 

encourages EPA to include standards and protocols that ensure residential energy efficiency can participate in state 

compliance obligations.[12]

 

 

2.2.2 Include Non-Utility Rate-Payer and Private Sector Energy Efficiency Actions as Compliance Options
10

 

The proposed Clean Power Plan incorporates and provides information on how utility energy efficiency programs can 

assist states in meeting the proposed standards. However, private sector efficiency programs and projects 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 delivered efficiency include projects implemented under ESPCs, or 

building projects that a business or city does in support of its local goals. EPA should provide appropriate 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 different types of non-utility efficiency resources and develop rules that 

enable each resource to contribute fully to the proposed rule, such as: 

 

• Building Codes, which are enacted and enforced by state and local governments, and can provide the legal 

certification of savings that EPA and state regulators need;

• Energy Savings Performance Contracts, which are today delivered almost exclusively to public customers, with the 

guaranteed savings from each project monitored and verified using the International Performance Measurement 

and Verification Protocol (IPMVP), can be independently audited by third-party expert consultants, and accepted by 

public officials;

• Privately Owned Commercial and Industrial (C/I) Retrofit Projects, which today implement primarily short payback 

retrofits, the savings from which can be verified using 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 design and the continuous improvement of building efficiency 

through operations.[13]

2.2.3 Building Codes

 

EPA specifically invited comments on the role building energy codes might play in achieving an increased 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 policies that states are using today to encourage energy 

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 building codes following 

an independent analysis of cost-effectiveness, distributional impacts, and other factors. Building energy 

codes are a relatively straightforward and transparent energy efficiency strategy. Updating codes is likely 

to be most worthwhile in states with the oldest existing codes.[16]

 

A building code is a set of rules that specify standards for buildings and non-building structures. There are many different 

types of building codes, but the ones relevant to this discussion address energy efficiency. BCSE recommends the 2012 

International Energy Conservation Code (“IECC”), which is a model code adopted by many states and municipal 

governments. The IECC establishes minimum design and construction requirements for energy efficiency.

 

There are essentially three facets of energy building 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 International Code 

Council (“ICC”).[17] EPA should give credit in the final Clean Power Plan where states and municipalities adopt the 2012 

IECC or some other code of similar rigor and integrity. Most states have existing building energy codes, but they are 

frequently outdated or in need of improvement. Therefore, EPA should also give credit where states upgrade or improve 
11

and enforce code requirements to reflect the most recent 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 state 

enforcement. Similar to adoption and upgrades, enforcement of the 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 residential, commercial, 

and industrial buildings. In addition, the most effective and comprehensive tool for promoting energy savings is building 

energy codes. In that EPA is eager to have EM&V data for such savings, building code adoption can deliver that crucial 

data and it is cost-effective and immediately available 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 state 

or local building energy codes, to contribute additional reductions in electricity demand beyond those

resulting from energy efficiency programs, we could reasonably increase the targeted annual incremental 

savings rate beyond 1.5 percent.[18]

 

In studies sponsored by the Institute for Electric Innovation (“IEI”) (formerly the Institute for Electric Efficiency) and the 

ACEEE, electricity savings achieved from improved adoption 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 Implementation

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 TWh

 
12

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 

energy 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 the resulting energy savings for its customer, is contractually 

guaranteed by the ESCO. The performance of the project is measured and verified (M&V) by professionals, using 

internationally established protocols. This rigorous level of M&V is the foundation of the performance-based contract 

guarantee. 

 

It appears that the energy efficiency elements of the proposed Clean Power Plan were developed primarily with utility 

energy efficiency programs in mind, despite the fact that energy efficiency investments through performance contracts 

approximate those made through utility programs (See Figure 1). Expressly allowing performance contracts to be a 

compliance option in the Clean Power Plan would significantly 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 efficiency results. 

 

Including performance contracting projects as an allowable compliance option for state plans is straightforward and 

consistent with the Clean Power Plan. However, additional guidance is needed for states to feel confident that EPA will 

recognize such projects and allow them to be included in state plans. 

 

As it finalizes the Clean Power Plan, EPA should: 

 

• Acknowledge that existing performance contracting projects could provide substantial contribution to 111(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 contracting projects; 

• Describe approvable approaches for aggregation of performance contracting projects;

• Identify approvable approaches for key compliance criteria to facilitate inclusion of emission reductions from 

performance contracting projects;
13

• Identify measurement and verification protocols acceptable for determining energy efficiency savings from 

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 contracting 

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 electricityimporting 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 reductions and has many similarities to energy storage. BCSE urges EPA 

to recognize demand response, especially when it is evaluating opportunities for compliance options such as energy 

storage. Demand response can be a key facilitator of emissions reductions. For example, demand response can help 

integrate renewable energy resources and facilitate with load-shifting, which can increase cleaner generation. In a more 

limited set of circumstances demand response can reduce emissions through curtailment, similar to energy 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 and Power (CHP) as an Efficiency Compliance Tool

 

Combined Heat and Power (CHP) and related technologies, such as Waste Heat to Power (WHP) and waste heat 

recovery, can serve as cost-effective tools to reducing emissions, both directly at affected power plants and by replacing 

the electricity generated at affected power plants with highly efficient on-site generation at industrial and other 

facilities. EPA should provide a clear signal to states that these emission reduction strategies are allowed as compliance 

strategies. 

 

The most important way that EPA can recognize the benefit of efficient CHP is to ensure that the applicability criteria for 

what is an “affected EGU” under the rule do not inadvertently sweep in industrial facilities that utilize CHP or WHP 

technology. Relatedly, EPA should send a clear message to states that because compliance is measured with regard to 

the emission performance of affected EGUs, states should not force emission reductions from industrial CHP facilities 

that are not the kind of electricity generating units that are the subject of this rulemaking. 

Adding or expanding CHP to existing fossil-fuel fired EGUs can reduce the emission rate of those EGUs. Adding CHP to 

existing affected facilities reduces pollution by using the energy potential of the fuel input twice or three times, yielding 

half to a third of the emissions from separate applications. BCSE applauds EPA for acknowledging the emission reducing 

potential of putting thermal output to productive use when calculating the emission rate of an affected 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 thermal output when calculating affected EGU emission rates. EPA 

should also make clear that adding CHP to an existing affected coal facility that results in efficiency gains beyond the 6 

percent heat rate improvement used to calculate state goals is an important and approvable compliance opportunity.

In addition, adding or expanding CHP at facilities other than affected EGUs—such as food processing, hospitals, 

industrial production and manufacturing, and commercial buildings—can measurably reduce demand for and therefore 

emissions from affected EGUs. The proposed rule acknowledges some of the benefits of CHP, including WHP, but needs 

to provide more clarity that CHP at a facility other than an affected EGU, qualifies as an efficiency resource. The 

regulatory benefit of new and expanded CHP at non-EGU facilities can be treated similarly to EPA’s proposed accounting 

for end-use energy efficiency. The electric and thermal output of such facilities can easily be quantified and included in 

the compliance calculation in the same way as energy efficiency or other clean generating resources. EPA should 
14

provide clear guidance to the states that expanding CHP at facilities other than affected EGUs is an approvable and costeffective compliance tool. 

 

2.3 Natural Gas 

 

Natural gas has played a large role in GHG emissions reductions in the US over the last several years and the proposed 

Clean Power Plan looks to natural gas to continue this 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 electricity in 2013, up from 

22 percent in 2012.[23]

The use of natural gas for power generation has proven to be an effective method of lowering carbon dioxide 

emissions. According to the Energy Information Administration, US energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have 

declined in four of the last seven years since 2007 and are down a total of 10 percent from 2005 levels due in part to 

increased natural gas-fired generation.[24] In the proposed rule’s base case year of 2012, power generation from 

combined cycle units and other natural gas generators reached an all-time high of 30 percent and contributed to carbon 

dioxide emissions falling to a 20 year low.[25] Importantly, these reductions demonstrate the ability of the natural gas 

industry and competitive markets to reliably deliver emission reductions without additional regulations. Natural gas 

generation has a proven track record of lowering emissions and its inclusion in the proposed rule recognizes its 

environmental benefits. 

2.3.1 Recognition of Natural Gas Markets 

 

The US possesses abundant natural gas supplies capable of meeting greater demand from the electric sector and other 

industries. In order to facilitate the greater use of natural gas-fired generation, and its corresponding emissions 

benefits, competitive natural gas markets must remain 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 efficient and predictable 

siting and permitting process for the new infrastructure 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, new pipeline capacity will play an essential role in transporting gas 

to market. A recent study released by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (INGAA) Foundation found that 

new pipelines will need to accommodate an additional 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 infrastructure.[26] The 

natural gas industry has shown its ability to quickly expand and improve natural gas infrastructure in the past and can 

continue to do so given clear market signals prompting investment. Regulators, including the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission (FERC), should remove any structural barriers 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 place to support the 

greater use of natural gas. 

 

In addition to building new infrastructure, the natural gas market features a wide array of contracting tools that 

facilitate efficient and timely natural gas use. Asset management agreements, pipeline park and loan services, storage 

contracts, and no notice service are just a few options at the disposal of customers. These tools when secured in 

advance as part of a diverse procurement strategy can assist generators in reliably meeting their obligations. Further, 

physical and financial hedging tools can help mitigate price swings and exposure to the spot market. Taken together, 

these procurement tools can assist power market participants 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 Power (CHP) as Compliance 

Tools 

 
15

EPA should provide a clear signal to states that natural 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 needs to provide 

more clarity that these benefits qualify as an efficiency resource. Additionally, EPA should give similar recognition for 

natural gas, all-electric Fuel Cells which re-use heat internally to generate electricity more efficiently and can be sited at 

facilities regardless of their thermal load and demand. EPA also should recognize the entire portfolio of thermal 

renewables: biogas and biomass pellets, solar thermal, geothermal and geothermal heat pumps, etc. 

 

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

 

In many states, direct use of natural gas and propane in homes and businesses for home heating and other thermal uses 

(e.g. water heating, cooking, clothes drying) can offer efficiency savings and GHG reductions compared to electric 

appliances. Depending on the emissions profile of the electricity generation in a state and the efficiencies of the electric 

and gas options being considered, using natural gas directly to serve thermal loads can avoid the significant efficiency 

losses that occur when electricity is generated from higher emitting sources in a large power plant, and 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 input 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 replacing a given 

number of water heaters or furnaces (e.g. in a utility rebate program) can be done using the same models of regional 

grid power (the mix of coal, natural gas, and renewables) as used for other outside the fence efficiency measures, along 

with measurement or estimates of the on-site GHG emissions. 

 

In states where net emission reductions can be achieved with such direct use of natural gas and propane, appliance 

rebate programs could also provide an option for states to reduce the cost of compliance while providing 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 natural gas or propane furnaces and water heaters are currently utilized 

in Oklahoma, Oregon and Florida. 

Conclusion 

 

BCSE appreciates the opportunity to provide you with its comments on the proposed Clean Power Plan and hopes these 

views will be useful as the EPA reviews and finalizes the rule. BCSE would like to be viewed as a resource to EPA during 

this process to help ensure the full portfolio of clean energy technologies and their full emissions reduction potential are 

recognized in Clean Power Plan compliance planning. Please contact the Council on the issues discussed 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 20004

202.785.0507 | 202.785.0514 (fax) | www.bcse.org 
16

 

 

[1]Sustainable Energy in America Factbook. Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Bloomberg New Energy Finance. February 2014. 

http://www.bcse.org/sustainableenergyfactbook.html

[2] Carbon Pollution Emissions Guidelines for Existing Stationary Sources: Electric Utility Generating Units; 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 Plants 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 consistent evaluation, measurement, and 

verification (EM&V) and emissions quantification approaches, and have developed some mechanism for the trading, averaging, and allotting of 

emissions.

[5] EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) on State Plan 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 Plants: Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Existing Stationary Sources: 

Electric Utility Generating Units. June 2, 2014. Section §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/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf

[8] An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams 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_Final_Report.pdf

[9] New Stream-reach Development: A Comprehensive Assessment 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://energy.gov/eere/water/new-vision-united-states-hydropower 

[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 Comments_final.pdf 

[12] Please see the comments submitted by Efficiency First and the Home Performance Coalition for additional details. 

[13] Letter to EPA on Private & Non-Utility Energy Efficiency in Proposed Clean Power Plan 

http://www.bcse.org/images/2014CleanAir/Private%20and%20non-utility%20EE%20letter%20for%20signature.pdf

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

[15] Stanford, Steyer-Taylor Center for Energy Policy and Finance, Hoover Institution: Shultz-Stephenson Task Force on Energy

Policy, “The State Clean Energy Cookbook: A Dozen Recipes for State Action on Energy Efficiency and Renewable 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 resilient structures

(http://www.iccsafe.org/abouticc/Pages/default.aspx). Internationally, code officials recognize the need for a modern, up-to

date energy conservation code addressing the design of energy-efficient building envelopes and installation of energy efficient 

mechanical, lighting and power systems through requirements emphasizing performance. Introduced in 1998 and continuing 

the leadership role in energy codes that the ICC legacy organizations started over 20 years before that, the International Energy 

Conservation Code (“IECC”) addresses energy efficiency on several fronts including cost savings, reduced 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 Electric Utility Customer-Funded Energy Efficiency Savings, Expenditures, and

Budgets,” Issue Brief, March 2014.

[20] Institute for Electric Innovation, “Factors Affecting 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 Harness Energy Efficiency 

to Strengthen the Economy and Reduce Air Pollution,” April 2014.

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

 

[23]Sustainable Energy in American Factbook 2014 edition, Bloomberg New Energy Finance 

http://www.bcse.org/factbook/pdfs/2014%20Sustainable%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/pdf/2013_co2analysis.pdf)

[25] Energy-related Carbon Dioxide Emissions Declined in 2012”, Energy Information Administration, April 2013 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10691

[26] North American Midstream Infrastructure through 2035: Capitalizing on Our Energy Abundance, INGAA Foundation, March 2014.

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