page 1

7/29/14

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 consistency 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 emission 

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 measures 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 federally 

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 penalties (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

7/29/14

“Enforceable CO2 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 affected 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. If 

we can demonstrate that these programs 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 affected 

sources or does each affected EGU need to reduce its emissions?

If 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. 

The Federal Register for 111(d) guidelines proposes on Page 34853 that BSER would be 

applied to affected units on a statewide basis. 

Suppose a processing plant connected to the grid had an unaffected boiler fired on

biomass for powering the plant. Can CO2 reductions from burning biomass 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) emission rate performance if the generator supplies 

power to a plant (e.g., rock crushing plant) that is not connected to the grid? 

4. If the 111(d) emission rate performance goal is met prior to 2030 (for example, met by 

2020), can a state choose not to require any further CO2 reductions and compare the 

actual emission performance level with the final 111(d) emission rate goal on a threeyear rolling average in accordance with state reporting requirements in 40 

CFR§60.5812(d)?
page 3

7/29/14

5. Does the EPA have a list of all comment requests given in the Federal Register of the 

proposed rules? 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 comment" 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 administrative 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 guidelines. 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 justify 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 Page 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 may 

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 renewable 
page 4

7/29/14

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 considering 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 erroneously. 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 corrections to CO2 emission 

calculation details? (The 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 the 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 sessions 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

7/29/14

17. If there are additional carbon reduction measures identified by states, would it be 

possible to include them as a 5th building block? 

18. Would EPA be open to Hawaii exploring a carbon credit system with another separate 

region like Alaska? We both are our own regions under the Section 111(d) compliance 

state groupings.