^W.4 ^	KEPCo

$UNFLOWER ELECTRIC 

Midwest Energy, Inc.	 *POWER CORPORATION *es:_tar Energy. 

May 20, 2014 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, WJC Bldg, Room 3000 

Washington, DC 20460 

rr-_5 y 

c CD

f-f-1 r_ N)

v c^ rt	c ^;- ::,_? . =10 

^ s ^ 

^: rn 

-a o 

r.)

Dear Ms. McCarthy: 

This letter is sent to provide the Environmental Protection Agency with input regarding Clean 

Air Act Section l 11(d) greenhouse gas regulations for existing electric generating stations. We 

appreciate your consideration of the approach and principles that this plan contains. The 

attached document was developed collaboratively among these Kansas utilities: Midwest 

Energy, Inc., Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Sunflower Electric Power Corporation and 

Westar Energy. 

Sincerely, 

lc"^IeST L.Phi:,Rr, 

Earnest Lehman (May 20, 2014) 

Earnie Lehman Stuart Lowry 

President and General Manager CEO 

Midwest Energy, Inc. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation 

1 J	

^— 

Churk ?errill (May 20. 2014) Mark, A. Ruelle (May 20. 2014? 

Chuck Terrill Mark Ruelle 

Executive Vice President & CEO President & CEO 

Kansas Electric Power Cooperative (KEPCo) Westar Energy, Inc. 

cc: John Mitchell, Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Tim Keck, Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Karl Brooks, Environmental Protection Agency-Region 7
A Greenhouse Gas Policy Proposal 

for Compliance under the Clean Air Act 

for Existing Electric Utility Sources 

May 2014
Table of Contents 

PREFACE..................................................................................................................................................................... 3 

ThePresident's Challenge .........................................................................................................................................3 

TheUtility Response .................................................................................................................................................3 

Equitable Share CO, Emission Reductions ...............................................................................................................3 

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................................................... 4 

Clean Air Act Section I I I(d) Regulatory Scheme .................................................................................................... 4 

Kansas Emission Intensity Performance Metric ........................................................................................................4 

CAN KANSAS ACHIEVE A 17 PERCENT CO2 REDUCTION? ..............................................................................4 

Kansas Can Achieve Reasonable Reduction Targets ................................................................................................ 4 

Kansas— The Current Status ..................................................................................................................................... 5 

GUIDINGPRINCIPLES .............................................................................................................................................. 5 

CAA 11I(d): A State Diiven Process ........................................................................................................................5 

CAA 111(d): State Flexibility ................................................................................................................................... 5 

Limited Reductions from Unit Level Efficiency or Heat Rate Improvenients .......................................................... 5 

BOUNDARY COMPLIANCE OPTIONS ...................................................................................................................6 

Utility-Specific Boundary for Determining COz Emission Compliance ................................................................... 6 

Kansas State Boundary for Determining CO, Eniission Conipliance Strategy .........................................................6 

Southwest Power Pool Boundary (RTO) for Deterniining CO2 Strategy Compliance .............................................. 6 

CO, Intensity Trading for Emission Compliance Strategy ........................................................................................6 

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................................................. 7

2 
PREFACE 

This proposal is a response to President Obama's Climate Action Plan in anticipation of Clean Air Act 

Section 111(d) regulations and follows conversations with both the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). It is a plan 

for Kansas which meets both the letter and intent of the President's challenge, taking into account the 

state-based approach of l l l(d) and Kansas' effort to develop its outstanding wind resource. 

The President's Challenge 

On June 25, 2013, President Obama released his Climate Action Plan directing EPA to work closely with 

"states, industry and other stakeholders" to develop COz standards of pertormance for existing electric 

utility generating units (EGUs). A Presidential Memorandum was issued directing EPA to provide 

guidelines to the States under CAA Section 111(d) by June 1, 2014.1 

The Utility Response 

As part of his Climate Action Plan, the President affirmed his pledge to reduce America's COz emissions 

in the range of 17 percent below 2005 baseline levels by 2020. Kansas electricity generating units are 

significant contributors to total Kansas CO2 emissions. As noted in Figure 1 below, electricity generating 

units released less than half of the 2011 annual COz emissions in the State of Kansas, with the majority of 

the CO2 emissions coming from other sources. Consistent with the President's challenge we might expect 

EPA guidance to require CO2 emissions reductions "in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels". 

The Kansas legislature acted in 2014, passing House Bill (HB) 2636 which the Governor signed into law 

on April 23, 2014. This legislation establishes the means by which the KDHE can work in accordance 

with the Clean Air Act to achieve compliance with the EPA guidance on COz reductions for EGUs. 

Consistent with that legislation, the undersigned have developed a range of strategies by which Kansas 

might meet these reductions acting under the Section 111(d) regulatory scheme. Greater details for these 

COZ emission reduction strategies are provided below. 

Equitable Share CO2 Emission Reductions 

To achieve the President's objective, CO, emission reductions need to be split fairly across all econoniic 

sectors (e.g. EGUs, industi-ial, residential, ete.). As depicted in Figure 1, more than half of the COz 

emissions in the State of Kansas are from sources other than EGUs. In order to achieve economy-wide 

reductions, other sectors of CO, emissions will also need to achieve proportional reductions of CO2 

emissions.

Kansas CO2 Emissions by Sector 

Figure 1

Residential 

5-^,	Con►mercial 

Source: EIA 2011State of F"ansas CO,Einissiuns 

I The President's Clinlate Action Plan, Executive Office of the President, The White House, Washington, D.C., June 

2013.
INTRODUCTION 

Clean Air Act Section 111(d) Regulatory Scheme 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 111(d) provides the mechanism for establishment of emission standards by 

States for existing sources for pollutants for which there is no existing ambient air quality standard. 

Whenever the EPA promulgates a standard for a new source category under Section l 1 l(b) the CAA also 

requires EPA to issue guidelines to the States under Section 111(d). These guidelines are then utilized by 

the States for the development of emission control strategies for the given pollutant. The emission control 

strategies developed by each State will be incorporated into state plans under Section 11 I(d), which are 

submitted to EPA for approval. 

On January S, 2014, EPA published in the Federal Register Standnrds of Performnnce for Greenhouse 

Gcls Emissionsfrom New Stationnry Soiu-ces: Electric Utility Gen.era.ting Units. These are the proposed 

CO, standards of performance for new electric utility generating units developed under CAA Section 

111(b). With the issuance of these proposed new source regulatiotls, CAA Section 111(d) has been 

triggered for existing CO2 emissions sources. The guidance by EPA to the states will be issued for public 

comment later this year. 

In accordance with CAA Section 1 1 l(d) the states are afforded flexibility under the CAA to develop 

complianee strategies for existing sources. In fact, in accordance. with CAA Section l l l(d) regulations 

developed by EPA, the States are to submit a state plan to "take into consideration, among other factors, 

the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standards applies". Therefore, the State of 

Kansas is afforded flexibility under the CAA to develop GHG compliance strategies for existing sources. 

Kansas Emission Intensity Performance Metric 

The Kansas utilities recommend the standard of performance be based upon COz intensity. The CO2 

intensity should be defined as the allowable CO 2 emissions in pounds per unit of electricity generated in 

megawatt-hours (lb/MWh). COZ intensity provides a more complete view of changes to Kansas' CO, 

emissions. For instance, COz intensity takes into account efficiency improvements at an EGU, industrial 

or residential source as well as electric transmission line efficiency improvements. In addition to changes 

in emissions from carbon-fueled sources, the CO2 intensity measure also includes additions or 

decommissioning of renewable non-0O2 generating sources. 

We chose to estimate CO, intensity as an illustration of one way this policy might work. We obtained 

publicly available historic and projected CO 2 emissions and electricity generation data for affected fossil', 

nuclear, and i-enewable EGUs located within Kansas. We summed the total Kansas CO, mass emissions 

and the electricity generated in MWh from affected fossil, nuclear and renewable EGUs. We organized 

the data into calendai- year datasets; for each calendar year we calculated the annual CO2 emission 

intensity by dividing the mass emissions foi- all affected fossil EGUs by the total MWh of electricity 

generated by Kansas EGUs. 

CAN KANSAS ACHIEVE A 17 PERCENT COz REDUCTION? 

Kansas Can Achieve Reasonable Reduction Targets 

Kansas COz intensity reductions should be limited to no more than seventeen (17) percent, as proposed by 

the President, from the baseline 2005 Kansas CO2 intensity by 2020. 

As can be seen in Figure 2, we believe we can maintain the COz intensity for Kansas below 17 percent of 

the 2005 CO2 intensity. Kansas is uniquely positioned to take advantage of a significant amount of 

'Affected fossil electric utility generating units are those existing sources detined as an "affected unit" in 40 CPR 

72.2 (Acid Rain Program).
renewable energy, especially wind electricity generation. In fact, Kansas has the second best wind 

resource in the United States. 3 The State recognized this incredible potential and passed the Kansas 

Renewable Energy Standards Act in 2009 and subsequently established renewable portfolio standards 

(RPS). The RPS statute requires the State's investor-owned and cooperative utilities to provide not less 

than 20% of their peak demand with renewable energy by 2020. 

Kansas — The Curreiit Status 

So how are we doing as a state in our quest to reduce COz emissions? In 2013, 19.4 percent of Kansas' 

electricity was provided by wind and this percentage of electricity generation ranked Kansas 3"' 

nationally.' By adopting RPS and adhering to the aggressive schedule for implementation, Kansas' 

affected electric generating units are in a unique position to uc able to meet President vuatna's challenge 

of 17 percent reduction in Kansas state-wide CO 2 eniissions from a 2005 baseline by 2020. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

CAA 111(d): A State Driven Process 

We believe that after the issuance of guidelines by EPA under CAA section 1 I 1(d), Kansas has the 

responsibility to develop standards of performance for CO, emission sources within Kansas boundaries. 

In fact, the Kansas Air Quality Act (AQA) has recently been amended requiring KDHE to develop 

standards for each individual or class of affected units and, further, that KDHE may aggregate and 

average the emissions from electricity producing resources within Kansas to meet the final EPA guidance. 

Ultirnately, these standards of performance will be included in a state plan that will be submitted to EPA 

for approval. We believe the EPA should give deference to the State during the plan approval process. 

CAA 111(d): State Flexibility 

While the EPA may issue guidelines for unit level emission reductions and must limit those reductions to 

"inside the fen.celine", the Kansas Air Quality Act (AQA) provides the flexibility to go "outside the 

fenceline"f when developing compliance plans and schedules of performance. It is necessary and wholly 

consistent with 111(d) that the state must be allowed complete flexibility in developing the final standards 

of performance. This flexibility needs to include the ability of the Kansas to take into consideration, 

among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source when developing standards of 

performance. 

Limited Reductions from Unit Level Efficiency or Heat Rate Improvements 

Because EGUs inherently operate very close to their design efficiencies, we believe unit specific 

efficiency improvements will have limited impact on overall COz emission reductions. While some units 

may be able to achieve minimal efficiency gains, many others wil] find it impossible to make even small 

ones. Because these small efficiency changes are highest immediately upon their implementation, after 

which they degrade over time, even these efficiency increases will have minimal long term CO2 reduction 

potential. Due to the small opportunity for efficiency improvement impacts, the flexible regulatory 

compliance mechanisms that are afforded the Secretary by the Kansas AQA's statutory language will be 

essential to achieving the overall targeted reductions. 

; American Wind Energy Association — State Wind Energy Statistics: Kansas referencing data from the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

4 American Wind Energy Association — State Wind Energy Statistics: Kansas. 

5 lriside the fenceline is defined as CO, emissions from affected existing emission sources within the physical 

1

property boundary of the stationary source. 

Outside the fenceline is defined as non or less polluting COz emission sources located outside the physical property 

boundary of the stationary sources. These sources could include but are not limited to wind, solar, landfill gas, and 

nuclear electricity generation, etc.
BOUNDARY COMPLIANCE OPTIONS 

Utility-Specific Boundary for Determining COa Emission Compliance 

KDHE may choose to develop a utility-wide compliance strategy by aggregating those electricity 

generating sources located within Kansas as an alternate compliance strategy consistent with EPA 

guidance. These electricity generating sources would include but are not limited to affected fossil, 

nuclear, and renewable EGUs. Each utility will be accountable for its' own CO2 emission performance 

within the utility's boundaries. 

Kansas State Boundary for Determining CO2 Emission Compliance Strategy 

KDHE may choose to aggregate all electricity generating sources located within the boundaries of Kansas 

when developing compliance strategies under EPA guidance. These electricity generating sources would 

include but are not limited to affected fossil, nuclear, and renewable EGUs. Only those electric 

generating sources located within the Kansas boundaries would be included. Kansas will be aceountable 

for CO2 emission performance within the state's boundaries. Figure 2 below provides an example of the 

how the 17°Io reduction might be achieved in future years using the Kansas boundary compliance strategy. 

Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) Boundary for Determining CO2 Strategy 

Compliance 

KDHE may choose to pat-ticipate in an RTO-wide compliance strategy with all electricity generating 

sources located within the boundaries of the RTO participating in an aggregate compliance strategy 

consistent with EPA guidance. These electricity generating sources would include but are not limited to 

all affec.ted fossil, nuclear, and renewable EGUs. Only those electric generating sources providing 

electricity inside the RTO boundaries would be included. The RTO will be accountable for CO2 emission 

performance within the RTO's boundaries. 

CO 2 Intensity Trading for Emission Compliance Strategy 

Kansas utilities may buy, sell, or trade excess intensity credit with other utilities. Unused intensity credits 

may be converted to mass emission credits for such trading. 

Figure 2 State of I<ansas - CO2 Intensity Trends and Forecast 

2,000 

1,800 

1,600

01,400 -- — ---- —	--	— -- — — — 

e`n	 i s ^ 1,200 

^	 Kanzas c 1,000	

c02 ^ 

-	 Intensity 

^ 800 

c	 — — 17% 

p i^00	 —	Beloyv 

"	 2005 

400 

200 

0 

oh o^° 01 0^ o°' ti° y' y1 ti'' ^4 tih 	y1 ti0 yC i L°


tio tio yo yo yo ,yo tio ,yo ,yo yo ,^o yo ,yo tio yo yo
^.^i11311►!mm 

Much is unknown about the upcoming guidance to be issued by EPA to the states. This plan is a response 

to those upcoming CO2 emissions i-eduction requirements, regardless of how the boundaries are di-awn for 

which compliance 111ust be demonstrated. Kansas utilities can achie.ve the required reductions if the rules 

adhere to the guiding principles described above. Utilities should be aceountable only foi- what they 

produce and other sectoi-s should be likewise accountable. States should be given maximuiu flexibility in 

developing performance standards. Unit efficiency or heat rate improvements must be realistic. Lastly. 

we believe that using CO, intensity as the pei-tormance measure is preferred, is simple to calculate and 

regulate, and yields the nlost accurate picture of CO, reduction in the electricity producing sector.
TRK# 7700 4923 8348 

0201 

XC RDVA

THU - 22 MAY 10:30A 

PRIORITY OVERNIGHT 

20460 

DC-US 

IAD 

Page 1 of 1 

From: (785) 575-6388	Origin ID: TOPA 

Pam Cochrane	 Fec[E-K. 

Westar Energy	 r,r1e'S


818 S Kansas Ave

Topeka, KS 66612

J 1 41 o I 4i7_'07o32B 

SHIP T0: (000) 000-0000	 BILL SENDER 

The Honorable Gina McCarthy 

US Enviomental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW WJC Bld 

Room 3000 

WASHINGTON, DC 20460

Ship Date: 21MAY14 

ActWgt: 1.0 LB 

CAD: 10100571INET3490 

Delivery

Ref #	6311 

Invoice # 

PO # 

Dept # 

After printing this label: 

1. Use the 'Print' button on this page to print your label to your laser or inkjet printer. 

2. Fold the printed page along the horizontal line. 

3. Place label in shipping pouch and affix it to your shipment so that the barcode portion of the label can be read and scanned. 

Warning: Use only the printed original label for shipping. Using a photocopy of this label for shipping purposes is fraudulent and could 

result in additional billing charges, along with the cancellation of your FedEx account number. 

Use of this system constitutes your agreement to the service conditions in the current FedEx Service Guide, available on 

fedex.com .FedEx will not be responsible for any claim in excess of $100 per package, whether the result of loss, damage, delay, nondelivery,misdelivery,or misinformation, unless you declare a higher value, pay an additional charge, document your actual loss and file a 

timely claim.Limitations found in the current FedEx Service Guide apply. Your right to recover from FedEx for any loss, including intrinsic 

value of the package, loss of sales, income interest, profit, attorney's fees, costs, and other forms of damage whether direct, 

incidental,consequential, or special is limited to the greater of $100 or the authorized declared value. Recovery cannot exceed actual 

documented Ioss.Maximum for items of extraordinary value is $1,000, e.g. jewelry, precious metals, negotiable instruments and other 

items listed in our ServiceGuide. Written claims must be filed within strict time limits, see current FedEx Service Guide. 

https.//www.fedex.com/shipping/html/en//PrintIFrame.html	 5/21 /2014
0 0 

^

0 V M 

• •

C ^+ 

^ O 

• ¢ fx 

C 

O r^' 

N pa 

: ° U 

^ 

• °3 ^' ^ •' '' •• ^ ^ z 

.•

^ C j ^ 

c^'^

• ca

	W ¢ p 

Co^

	cd N 

0.) ^ C v^	y

	bA 

^ b O c^a H¢^3 

. O 

^ ,^ .. 

^ 0 ^