MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/10/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

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

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Advanced Energy Board of Directors Meeting

held on 06/17/2014

SUMMARY: 

EPA Region 4 provided an overview of the Clean Power Plan to attendees at the Advanced 

Energy Board of Directors Meeting on 06/17/2014 in Raleigh, NC. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Ken Mitchell/EPA R4

External Stakeholders

Dr. Robert Koger, Advanced Energy

Other Board Members and guests

ATTACHMENTS
Advance Questions for Discussion of the Clean Power Plan with Advanced Energy Board of Directors

Meeting held on 06/17/2014 in Raleigh, NC

• Upon release of the proposed greenhouse gas rule, EPA publicly stated the rule would result in 

reducing carbon emissions from existing power plants by 30% over 2005 levels. Upon review, 

the rule proposes state-specific carbon intensity (emission rate vs. tonnage) goals based on 2012 

levels. Can you send a few moments clarifying these two statements?

• One of the consistent themes throughout EPA’s stakeholder meetings, including those with 

state regulators, was the desire that EPA recognize and give credit for early action taken to 

reduce CO2 emissions. NC has retired or will have retired half of its coal fleet by 2018. Will N.C. 

get credit for this early action? How will the proposed rule address retirements prior to 2012? 

And between 2012 and the first compliance requirement of 2020? 

• Will this rule force additional coal retirements?

• EPA set state goals, including North Carolina’s, based on assumptions that utility customers will 

participate in energy efficiency programs at ever increasing levels. History has shown that 

despite utility incentives, not all customers have chosen to participate. In fact, in NC, large 

industrials have the legal option to opt out of such programs. How does EPA intend to address 

these concerns? 

• The proposed rule does not allow states to use all of its nuclear generation, an emissions free 

resource, to count towards meeting the goal. Why not?

 Obviously, states will play a vital role in enforcing the EPA guidance through their individual 

implementation plans. Outside of the formal comment process, will EPA be engaging in any 

stakeholder dialogues (with states or other affected parties) prior to finalizing the rule?

 What criteria will EPA use to evaluate the state implementation plans?

 Would congress have to expand EPA’s authority to allow electric vehicles to count toward the 

goal?

 This just cites some confusion over the 2012 base for renewables and energy efficiency. I don’t 

know if you can add any more to this except to say that they were incorporated into the overall 

state by state picture. (Question in relation to the following article: UTILITIES: Early movers fret 

EPA climate rule won't fully credit early investments (Tuesday, June 10, 2014); Jean Chemnick 

and Hannah Northey, E&E reporters)

 The only point I see of interest here is the comment that each of the 4 bases are severable. In 

other words, if the courts were to overturn one of them, the rest would apply and just make it 

possibly more difficult to meet the requirements. (In relation to the following article: 

REGULATION: Questions of jurisdiction, responsibility may foreshadow legal trouble for new EPA 

power plant rule (Friday, June 6, 2014); Nathanael Massey, E&E reporter)
 I assume that you will give an overview (30 percent by 2030) of the rule including the 4 “building 

blocks”. Can you discuss how the “requirements for each state varies and how they depend on 

several factors. Can you cite NC specifically? Also, it appears that energy efficiency and 

renewables can count toward meeting the goal but it looks like in figuring the goals, everything 

done in these areas up to 2012 have already been considered by EPA in setting the state by 

state requirements. Might want to state that (assuming this is the case) so that there will not be 

any confusion.