MEMORANDUM 

DATE: May 4, 2015 

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

FROM: Melanie King, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

SUBJECT: April 28, 2015 Meeting with Navajo Nation and Salt River Project Regarding Proposed 

Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

SUMMARY 

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendee(s) listed below on April 28, 2015, to discuss 

the proposed Clean Power Plan Supplemental Proposal for Existing Power Plants in Indian Country and 

U.S. Territories. The Clean Power Plan Supplemental Proposal was issued on October 28, 2014, and 

published in the Federal Register on November 4, 2014. The materials provided by the Navajo Nation 

are included as an attachment to this memorandum. 

ATTENDEES 

Navajo Nation (in person) 

Stephen Etsitty 

Harrison Tsosie 

April Quinn 

Jim Staudt 

Jill Grant 

Bethany Fisher 

Derek Dyson 

Greg Jones 

Simon Boyce 

Anthony Peterman 

Eugene Quintana 

Raju Bisht 

Salt River Project (in person) 

Kelly Barr 

Jim Pratt 

Bob Roessel 

Navajo Nation (by phone) 

Greg Kelly 

Sam Woods 

Martin Ashley 

Michelle Henry 

Arvin Mitchell 

Bidtah Becker 

EPA (in person)

William Niebling 

Joe Goffman 

Pat Childers 

EPA (by phone)

Amy Zimpfer 

Ann Lyons 

Anita Lee 

Deborah Jordan 

Greg Green 

Chebryll Edwards 

Angela Hackel 

Melanie King 

Kevin Culligan 

Nate Topham 

Rick Vetter 
Attachment: Materials Provided by Navajo Nation 
1

April 28, 2015

Washington, DC

Navajo Nation (NN) 

Carbon Team Meeting 

with EPA
Issues to Discuss

• Rule for NN

• More on the Parity Glide Path

2
NN Rule

• Plants unlikely to give NN authority to 

regulate them

• Therefore, NN expects it will be “necessary 

or appropriate” for EPA to promulgate a FIP 

for the Navajo Nation, see 40 CFR § 49.11(a)

3
Does EPA have authority to set less stringent 

standards on a case-by-case basis?

• “Section 111(d) guidelines, like NSPS standards, must reflect the emission 

reduction achievable through the application of BESR. However, both the 

statute and EPA’s regulations implementing section 111(d) recognize that 

existing sources may not always have the capability to achieve the same 

levels of control at reasonable cost as new sources. The statute and EPA’s 

regulations in 40 CFR 60.24 permit states and EPA to set less stringent 

standards or longer compliance schedules for existing sources when 

warranted, considering cost of control, useful life of the facilities, location 

or process design at a particular facility, physical impossibility of installing 

necessary control equipment, or other factors making less stringent limits 

or longer compliance schedules appropriate.”

• Background on Establishing New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) Under the Clean Air 

Act, 

http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/listening/BackgroundEstablishingNewSourcePerformanceStd

s.pdf

4
Does EPA have authority to set less stringent 

standards on a case-by-case basis?

• In addition, CAA § 301(d)(4) provides that “In any case in which the 

Administrator determines that the treatment of Indian tribes as identical to 

States is inappropriate or administratively infeasible, the Administrator 

may provide, by regulation, other means by which the Administrator will 

directly administer such provisions so as to achieve the appropriate 

purpose.”

• EPA’s authority and obligations to the NN also are rooted in the federal 

trust responsibility and in the Treaty of 1868 between the U.S. and the NN, 

which among other things protects coal as a tribal resource 

– See also Dec. 1, 2014 Memorandum from Gina McCarthy Commemorating the 30th 

Anniversary of EPA’s Indian Policy (“EPA must ensure its actions do not conflict with tribal 

treaty rights”) 

• The discussion that follows explains why it is inappropriate to use the same 

base years, building blocks and growth projections for the NN as for the 

states 

5
Other things to consider

• NN per capita electricity demand is much lower than that of 

neighbors.

• Growth has been flat to slightly negative – not 1.3% per EPA 

assumption

• Is there a way to account and adjust for the very low electricity 

usage by NN and promote NN economic growth and demand?

6
Growth Assumptions

• EPA assumes 1.3% 

annual electricity 

growth absent the 

CPP – same as 

surrounding states

• Historical NTUA 

demand growth is 

flat to slightly 

negative

7
Parity Glide Path

• Compare per-capita energy consumption of 

NN to that of neighbors

– AZ, CO, NM, UT

• Determine equivalent NN demand if NN had 

same per capita consumption

– Also use correct historical growth rates for NN 

electricity use to forecast future use

• Determine path to make NN equivalent to 

neighbors in the time rule is implemented

8
Parity Glide Path (PGP) – Option 1

9

Apply adjustment to 

equation

1,584,579 MWh
Parity Glide Path (PGP) – Option 2

10

Apply as adjustment to 

equation

1,537,543 MWh
EPA’s rate equation, with a suggested 

adjustment

11

CO2 from fossil units

MWh from fossil + MWh from RE + MWh from EE – PGP Adjustment
Estimated Rate Goals with PGP (using final 

year)

12

HRI, %

Estimated Interim 

Rate

Estimated Final Rate, 

lb/MWh Estimated Final Mass Cap, short tons

Base Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2

2005 6 4 2,128 2,184 2,155 2,201 35,181,084 35,928,143

2006 6 4 2,117 2,171 2,143 2,188 35,909,385 36,665,939

2007 6 4 2,132 2,188 2,160 2,206 34,793,659 35,524,517

2008 6 4 2,144 2,199 2,172 2,217 34,973,452 35,709,093

2009 6 4 2,146 2,202 2,174 2,220 34,547,054 35,274,865

2010 6 4 2,072 2,126 2,101 2,145 31,859,858 32,532,739

2011 6 4 2,076 2,131 2,104 2,149 32,618,580 33,310,310

2012 6 4 2,072 2,126 2,101 2,145 31,122,632 31,782,033
Justification of PGP

• Equity, to account for extremely low electricity 

use by NN and the need to increase rather than 

decrease demand

• A means to help NN deal with potential for all 

NGS units operating – and for the possibility 

that all three NGS units could be operating

• As a means of accounting for correct growth 

rate

13
1

April 28, 2015

Washington, DC

Navajo Nation (NN), 

BOR and SRP Meeting 

with EPA
Recommendation Package for Final Rule 

Applicability to Tribal Lands

• Different base years for establishing goals

• Leave BB2 per proposed rule

• BB3 – clarify that Renewable Energy projects 

developed on Tribal lands should be promoted for 

use by States in developing State compliance plans, 

not hindered. 

• BB4 - should not apply

• Rate equation per proposed rule, not NODA

• General – use Parity Glide Path to account for low 

electricity use in NN

2
NN Economic Conditions

3

NN economy is extremely dependent upon the 

two power plants
BB1 Issues

• 4% or 6% HRI from current HR is not 

achievable on either plant

• Far less operating flexibility than a state due 

to only two plants

• Some operating scenarios at NGS may make 

mass cap with 2012 basis difficult to achieve

4
Recommend 2006 base year or 2005-2007 

average in calculating emission rate goals

5

Estimated Interim Rate, lb/MWh Estimated Final Rate, lb/MWh

Estimated Final Mass Cap, short 

tons

Base Year Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2 Option 1 Option 2

2005 2,053 2,098 2,051 2,097 33,480,941 34,237,418

2006 2,044 2,089 2,042 2,088 34,218,132 34,984,647

2007 2,056 2,101 2,054 2,100 33,089,093 33,830,105

2008 2,067 2,112 2,065 2,112 33,259,783 34,005,539

2009 2,068 2,113 2,066 2,113 32,831,697 33,569,493

2010 1,993 2,037 1,991 2,036 30,202,838 30,885,092

2011 1,999 2,043 1,997 2,042 30,958,991 31,659,887

2012 1,991 2,035 1,989 2,034 29,465,849 30,133,848

Option 1: 6% HRI

Option 2: 4% HRI
BB2

• EPA was correct in PSR to acknowledge that 

BB2 should not apply to NN

• Minimum gas usage or regional goal per 

NODA would be extremely harmful to NN 

economy

– Already suffering from roughly 30% reduction in coal use 

at FCPP

– Likely to see 33% reduction at NGS

6
BB3

• EPA was correct in PSR to acknowledge that 

BB3 would not apply to NN

– Electricity used on NN is mostly hydro

– NN opposes BB3 aspects of NODA

• NN recommends that final rule language 

clarified that Renewable Energy resources 

located on Tribal lands are promoted for use 

by States in developing State Plans and goals

– Current language hinders/prevents development 

of Renewable Energy Resources on Tribal Lands

7
BB4

• NN believes the EPA incorrectly applied 

regional growth projections to NN

– NN economy and energy use is vastly different than 

that of neighbors

• EPA should consider actual historical growth in 

demand, per-capita energy use and ability to 

pay for EE in setting BB4 goals

– Recommend Parity Glide Path adjustment to rate 

equation to account for disparity in electricity use 

between NN and regional neighbors

8
Some perspectives on BB4

9
Other Issues

• NN opposes changes to rate setting equation 

per NODA

• See Joint Comments which addresses our 

other issues

10
Summary

• Different base years for establishing goals

• Leave BB2 per proposed rule

• BB3 – clarify that RE projects developed on 

Tribal Lands, including NN, are promoted for 

use by States in developing State Plans

• BB4 - should not apply

– General – use Parity Glide Path to account for 

low electricity use in NN

• Rate equation per proposed rule, not NODA

11