### EPA Public Hearing on Clean Power Plan Proposal July 29-30, 2014, Atlanta, Georgia

Comments ofthe Florida Electric PowerCoordinating Group, Inc.

Good morning. My name is Robert Manning, and I am an attorneywith Hopping Green and Sams, an environmental lawfirm in Tallahassee, Florida. I serve as counsel tothe Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group on air regulatory matters, and today I am providing comments on EPA's proposals on the FCG's behalf. The 29 members ofthe FCG generate nearly all ofthe powerfor Florida's nearly20 million residents. The FCG will be submitting more extensive and detailed written comments by the deadline. As an initial matter, Florida utilities have made substantial progress overthe last decade in reducing C02. Specifically, we have reduced the lb/MWh by nearly 20 percent since 2005, and thetons peryear by about 12 percent, all while increasingthe overall generation by 12 percent. The FCG is concerned that EPA is not providing sufficienttimeto review and comment on its proposals, which are comprised oftwo majorcomponents- one for existing utility units and one for reconstructed and modified units. Although EPA has provided 120 days, the complexity ofthe proposal and the current lack ofsupportingdocumentationthat EPA has provided result in the need for additional time in which to evaluatethe proposals and develop meaningful comments. Evaluation ofthe proposed emission rate goals for Florida and their "building block" components requires an extensive analysis ofthe state's generation and transmission systems and theirassociated capabilities and limitations. Athorough review of EPA's analysis (when the information becomes available) requires months ratherthan weeks. Accordingly, the FCG requests that EPA provide an additional 90 days in whichto evaluate and comment on the proposals.FCG Public Hearing Comments July 30, 2014 Page 2

The FCG has numerous legal, regulatory, and technical concerns regarding EPA's proposals. Today Iwill briefly highlight several ofthem, particularly as they relate to Florida.
The proposed section 111(d) proposal is complex, difficultto understand, difficultto analyze, and itwill be difficultto implement iffinalized in anything like its currentform. In the proposal, EPA is asserting new, undetermined authorityto dictate how generation is dispatched, the amount of renewable resources to be built, and demand-side management ofelectricity use. These guidelines and the subsequent state-developed standards for stationary sources under section 111 should begin and end with the regulated source itself. An NSPS or existing source guideline must applyto individual sources, must be based on reductions that an individual source can achieve, and must be based on the use ofa system that is incorporated intothe design ofthe source. Ofthefour "building blocks" EPA proposes as part ofa "system of emission reduction" under its "Option 1" approach, onlythe first can be applied by individual sources subjectto the proposal. The otherthree measures are out ofthe control ofany particular regulated source and are predicated on actions by others. This is inconsistent with EPA's obligations underthe CAA. Further, ifa state does not submit an "approvable" plan, EPA has no authorityto promulgate a federal plan that includes the measures it would require ofstates. EPA cannot develop and impose afederally-enforceable, energy-resource development and dispatch program upon a particular state or group ofstates. The FCG is also very concerned with EPA's use ofthe 2012 baseline year. EPA proposes to require Florida utilitiesto reduce their average C02 emission rate by an additional 38 percent from 2012 to 2030, and provides no consideration forthe substantial reductions already achieved. EPA fails to consider this progress and instead is proposing an additional draconian reduction in emissions that likely cannot be achieved. In fact, EPA set the 2020to 2029 10-year average interim goal at a level that requires emissions to decrease dramatically in onlythe next fewyears, making it perhaps more aggressive than the 2030goal.

## • FCG Public Hearing Comments July 30, 2014 Page 3

Regarding state implementation ofthe guidelines, the "flexibility" EPA touts is an illusion: EPA set each state's goal assuming that each state completely adopts all four building blocks. For Florida, we are concerned that each Building Block is unachievable, meaningthatthere is no margin to make-up under one Building Blockthe amountto which we fall short on another. Absent this ability, Florida cannot meet EPA's proposed goal. Also, if EPA issues afederal plan to a state, since it lacks the legal authorityto implement at least Building Blocks 2-4, EPA's proposed state goal would be unachievable underthis scenario as well.
Aside from the legal and regulatory issues associated with the four building blocks, there are serious technical and practical issues regardingtheir implementation and achievability. The 6 percent heat rate improvement contained in Building Block 1 is unachievable. In orderto produce electricityas efficiently, reliably, and cost-effectively as possible, utilities have already undertaken measures to optimize the efficiency oftheir units in order reduce operatingcosts and rate impacts to customers. In addition, EPA's analysis for Florida predictsthe shutdown of nearly all coal-fired generation in the state, making any heat rate improvements forthose units moot. The 70 percent capacity factor goal forthe use ofnatural gas-fired combined-cycle units in Building Block 2 is unreasonable. It is notjustthe type of unit and the fuel it uses that are important- it is also the location ofeach unit with respect to electric grid support and whether the transmission system can accommodate significant shifts in unit dispatch order and extent. And fuel flexibility is particularly importantfor Florida, given our peninsular geographyand susceptibilityto hurricanes and the accompanying poweroutages and potential forfuel curtailments. EPA failed to considerthese critical factors in its analysis. Regarding Build Block 3, EPA's proposal assumes a five-fold increase in renewable generation for Florida between 2012 and 2030. Florida has already increased its renewable generation since 2005 from about 33 to nearly 3000 GWhs. And we must rememberthat renewableFCG Public Hearing Comments July 30, 2014 Page 4

resources are intermittent and often unreliable, and conventional generation resources must be maintained and operated in ordertofill the gaps leftwhen the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing.
In Building Block 4, EPA expects Florida utilities to increase demand-side energy efficiency by 1.5 percent peryear. Sustainingthis goal is unprecedented. For over

### 30years, Florida utilities have implemented aggressive demand-side programs, reducing electricity use and avoidingthe construction ofadditional generating units. Through promotion ofenergy-saving measures, rebates, and the savings that are being obtained dueto more stringentfederal and state standardsfor appliances and building construction, most ofour customers have long-since implemented and benefitted from increased efficiency. Because ofthe improvements already made, the achievable additional increase in demand-side energy efficiency is much less than 1 percent peryear. In addition, adoption ofthese measures ultimately is up to the customer, and neither EPA, state agencies, nor utilities can mandate orforce energy efficiency measures to be implemented. Finally, Iwould like to comment on EPA's use of net ratherthan gross electricity generation as a basis forthe emission rate goals in the proposal. Use of net generation penalizes utilities for the electricitythat is used to power pollution control systems that are, in fact, mandated by otherfederal environmental regulations. In addition, EPA's proposed newsource C02 standards under section 111(b) are based on gross generation. For consistency, gross generation should also be used forthe section lll(d) standards.
In sum, Florida utilities have substantially decreased C02 emissions overthe last decade. EPA's current proposalsto mandatefurther reductions are unreasonable and unlawful. Thank you for your consideration ofthe FCG's comments. 

# ,,