page 1 7/2 9/14
**Questions for discussion 8/7/14**  **: Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants**  **Under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA)**  **1. Structure of State Plans.**  Several possible approaches are being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ) to achieve the 111(d) plan performance goal
. In the Clean Power Plan preamble ( Page 34837) , EPA discusses the “simultaneous need for both flexibility and clear guidance on what would constitute an approvable state plan,” and “a need for rigor and consisten cy in calculating emissions reductions reflecting the best system of emission reduction ( BSER ) and a need to provide the states with flexibility in establishing and implementing the standards of performance that reflect those emissions reductions.” Then it discusses the “Plan Approach” for State Plans, stating that, “[e]ach state will determine, and include in its plan, emission performance levels for its affected electric generating units ( EGUs ) that are equivalent to the state
- specific goal in the emissio n guidelines, as well as measures needed to achieve those levels and the overall goal.” The possible approaches include : a. A “portfolio approach,” which includes a combination of emission limitations that apply directly to the affected sources, and other me asures that have the effect of limiting generation by, and therefore emissions from, the affected sources; b. A ‘‘state commitment approach , ’’ in which there is a federally
- enforceable commitment by the state itself to implement state
- enforceable (but not fe derally enforceable) measures that would achieve a specified portion of the required emission performance level on behalf of affected EGUs but which, if emission reductions are not achieved, could result in the State being held liable for Clean Air Act pen alties ( Page 34902).
c. Solely emission limitations that apply directly to the affected sources (the affected EGUs would be the sole entities legally responsible for achieving the emission performance level) ( Page 34901). What does EPA mean by: “Emission performance levels” for affected EGUs ?page 2 7/2 9/14
“Enforceable CO 2 emission limits that apply to affected EGUs” ? The “portfolio approach”? Do specific sources of energy efficiency ( EE ) savings or renewable energy ( RE ) generation need to be explicitly allocated to affect ed EGUs? Does it matter if the EE savings and RE generation exceed the maximum theoretical production capacity of affected units? Hawaii currently has State
- enforceable mandates for RE generation and EE savings
. I f we can demonstrate that these program s will lead to fulfillment of the rate
- based goal, would additional measures be required? Could states use an approach that relied solely on RE and EE measures to achieve the emission rate performance goal without specifying emission limits for the affecte d sources or does each affected EGU need to reduce its emissions ? I f we were to hold emissions from affected EGUs constant and achieve the rate
- based goal through RE and EE alone, would this be approvable? **2.** On grid renewables. T he Federal Register for 11 1(d) guidelines proposes on Page 34853 that BSER would be applied to affected units on a statew ide basis
. S uppose a processing plant connected to the grid had a n unaffected boiler fired on biomass for power ing the plant . Can CO 2 reductions from burning bio mass as a renewable energy at this facility be used in determining the state’s 111 (d) emission rate performance ? **3.** Off grid renewables. Could the renewable energy supplied by a biodiesel fired engine generator be used in determining the state’s 111(d) em ission rate performance if the generator supplies power to a plant (e.g., rock crushing plant) that i s not connected to the grid? **4.** If the 111(d) emission rate performance goal is met prior to 2 030 (for example, met by 2020) , can a state choose not to requi re any further CO 2 reduction s and compare the actual emission performance level with the final 111(d) emission rate goal on a three
year rolling average in accordance with state reporting requirements in 40 CFR§60.5812(d)?page 3 7/2 9/14
**5.** Does the EPA have a list of all c omment requests given in the Federal Register of the p roposed r ules? If not, could EPA confirm the search terms sufficient to find all requests for comment?; it appears that "requests comment", "requests comments", "requesting comment", and "request comme nt" may be sufficient. In this case, it would also be helpful to know the total number of comment requests. **6.** If comments result in EPA changing the state goals, after EPA documents the rationale for changes, is it correct to conclude that states have no a dministrative recourse if errors or misinterpretations are identified?
o Background: VII. D: State Flexibilities of the rules state: "As promulgated in the final rule following consideration of comment, the state
- specific goals will be binding emission gui delines. States' ability to achieve emission performance levels consistent with the binding goals is enhanced by several distinct types of flexibility: (i) Choices as to the measures employed, including the timing of their implementation; (ii) the ability to translate from a rate
- based form of goal to a mass- based form of goal; and (iii) the opportunity to pursue multi

- state plan approaches." ( Page 34897) **7.** Is EPA prohibited by current law from specifying in the rules that states are allowed to propose and j ustify alternative emission rate (lb/MWh) goal levels in their state plans? **8.** We would like to clarify the value of the RE generation growth factor for Hawaii discussed in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing stationary sources "GHG Abatement Measures". On P age 4
- 18, it is stated in the text that the value is 8%. In Table 4.5, the value given is 9%. Since Table 4.5 is not referenced in the text, while it appears to conflict with the 8% value, the 9% value ma y refer to something else. Note also that the "Alternative RE Approach" TSD references the "GHG Abatement Measures" TSD when noting the annual growth factor for Hawaii was calculated to be 7.9%. **9.** Are there National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) efforts to forecast renewable energy growth for Hawaii that extend upon the approach outlined in the "Alternative RE Approach" TSD? Also, though it does not appear to be included in the "Alternative RE Approach" or "GHG Abatement Measures" TSDs, did NREL or EPA document the potential uncertainty associated with basing annual growth factors for 2020 to 2030 on the difference between 2002 and 2012 renewable energy generation?
o Background: this annual growth factor was developed by the NREL and is held fixed from 2020 to 2030. It results in EPA's estimate for Hawaii renewablepage 4 7/2 9/14 energy target growing from 1,368 GWh in 2020 to 1,948 GWh in 2025 and 2,600 GWh in 2030. Note that this assumption of a constant renewable energy growth rate factor seems overly simplistic c onsidering the importance of renewable energy for goal attainment. **10.** The draft rules include the simple cycle turbine at Kapaia Power Station in the list of affected facilities. The unit does not burn natural gas, so it appears to have been included erroneo usly. Will this unit be removed from the list, and Hawaii’s goal adjusted accordingly?
o Background: Based on preliminary discussions with EPA technical representatives, we believe the answer is yes. **11.** Should entities comment on some relatively minor correcti ons to CO 2 emission calculation details ? (T he EPA used US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) data to compute affected unit emissions .)
o Background: Based on preliminary discussions with EPA technical representatives, we believe t he answer is yes. **12.** Could EPA please discuss the various components required for approvable state plans under 40 CFR § 60.23 that are described on Page 436? **13.** What is the role of the Alternate RE approach? We do not agree with using historical growth rates to forecast future growth in RE. **14.** Do we get credit for an energy efficiency measure that was implemented in 2012 and still saves (subject to measurement and verification) kWh in a year during the compliance period? Is this considered an “action?” **15.** Hawaii has established energy efficiency and renewable energy standards, requirements, definitions, specifications, measurement and verification, and incentive and penalty systems. The development of these programs took place over several years, in legislative sess ions and docketed proceedings, and involved many experts, consultants, stakeholders, and intervenors. Will Hawaii be able to continue to use these definitions and measurements in its energy efficiency and renewable energy measurement and reporting systems ? **16.** Going back to question #1, which approach would allow Hawaii to continue with the least amount of regulatory uncertainty, risk, or loss of momentum?page 5 7/2 9/14
**17.** If there are additional carbon reduction measures identified by states, would it be possible to include them as a 5th building block? **18.** W ould EPA be open to Hawaii e xploring a carbon credit system with another separate region like Alaska ? W e both are our own regions under the Section 11 1(d) compliance state groupings.