EPA Public Hearing on Clean Power Plan Proposal 

July 29-30, 2014, Atlanta, Georgia 

Comments of the Florida Electric Power Coordinating Group, Inc. 

Good morning. My name is Robert Manning, and I am an attorney with Hopping Green and 

Sams, an environmental law firm in Tallahassee, Florida. I serve as counsel to the 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 of the FCG generate 

nearly all ofthe power for Florida's nearly 20 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 over the last decade in 

reducing C02. Specifically, we have reduced the lb/MWh by nearly 20 percent since 2005, and 

the tons per year by about 12 percent, all while increasing the overall generation by 12 

percent. 

The FCG is concerned that EPA is not providing sufficient time to review and comment on its 

proposals, which are comprised of two major components- one for existing utility units and 

one for reconstructed and modified units. Although EPA has provided 120 days, the complexity 

of the proposal and the current lack of supporting documentation that EPA has provided result 

in the need for additional time in which to evaluate the proposals and develop meaningful 

comments. Evaluation of the proposed emission rate goals for Florida and their "building 

block" components requires an extensive analysis of the state's generation and transmission 

systems and their associated capabilities and limitations. A thorough review of EPA's analysis 

(when the information becomes available) requires months rather than weeks. Accordingly, 

the FCG requests that EPA provide an additional 90 days in which to 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 I will briefly highlight several of them, particularly as they relate to Florida. 

The proposed section 111(d) proposal is complex, difficult to understand, difficult to analyze, 

and it will be difficult to implement if finalized in anything like its current form. In the proposal, 

EPA is asserting new, undetermined authority to dictate how generation is dispatched, the 

amount of renewable resources to be built, and demand-side management of electricity 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 apply to individual sources, must be based on reductions that an individual 

source can achieve, and must be based on the use of a system that is incorporated into the 

design of the source. Of the four "building blocks" EPA proposes as part of a "system of 

emission reduction" under its "Option 1" approach, only the first can be applied by individual 

sources subject to the proposal. The other three measures are out of the control of any 

particular regulated source and are predicated on actions by others. This is inconsistent with 

EPA's obligations under the CAA. 

Further, if a state does not submit an "approvable" plan, EPA has no authority to promulgate a 

federal plan that includes the measures it would require of states. EPA cannot develop and 

impose a federally-enforceable, energy-resource development and dispatch program upon a 

particular state or group of states. 

The FCG is also very concerned with EPA's use of the 2012 baseline year. EPA proposes to 

require Florida utilities to reduce their average C02 emission rate by an additional 38 percent 

from 2012 to 2030, and provides no consideration for the 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 2020 to 2029 10-year 

average interim goal at a level that requires emissions to decrease dramatically in only the next 

few years, making it perhaps more aggressive than the 2030 goal. 
• 

FCG Public Hearing Comments 

July 30, 2014 

Page 3 

Regarding state implementation of the 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, meaning that there is no 

margin to make-up under one Building Block the amount to which we fall short on another. 

Absent this ability, Florida cannot meet EPA's proposed goal. Also, if EPA issues a federal plan 

to a state, since it lacks the legal authority to implement at least Building Blocks 2-4, EPA's 

proposed state goal would be unachievable under this scenario as well. 

Aside from the legal and regulatory issues associated with the four building blocks, there are 

serious technical and practical issues regarding their implementation and achievability. 

The 6 percent heat rate improvement contained in Building Block 1 is unachievable. In order to 

produce electricity as efficiently, reliably, and cost-effectively as possible, utilities have already 

undertaken measures to optimize the efficiency of their units in order reduce operating costs 

and rate impacts to customers. In addition, EPA's analysis for Florida predicts the shutdown of 

nearly all coal-fired generation in the state, making any heat rate improvements for those units 

moot. 

The 70 percent capacity factor goal for the use of natural gas-fired combined-cycle units in 

Building Block 2 is unreasonable. It is not just the type of unit and the fuel it uses that are 

important- it is also the location of each 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 important for Florida, given our peninsular geography and 

susceptibility to hurricanes and the accompanying power outages and potential for fuel 

curtailments. EPA failed to consider these 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 remember that renewable 
FCG Public Hearing Comments 

July 30, 2014 

Page 4 

resources are intermittent and often unreliable, and conventional generation resources must 

be maintained and operated in order to fill the gaps left when 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 per year. Sustaining this goal is unprecedented. For over 30 years, Florida utilities 

have implemented aggressive demand-side programs, reducing electricity use and avoiding the 

construction of additional generating units. Through promotion of energy-saving measures, 

rebates, and the savings that are being obtained due to more stringent federal and state 

standards for appliances and building construction, most of our customers have long-since 

implemented and benefitted from increased efficiency. Because of the improvements already 

made, the achievable additional increase in demand-side energy efficiency is much less than 1 

percent per year. In addition, adoption of these measures ultimately is up to the customer, and 

neither EPA, state agencies, nor utilities can mandate or force energy efficiency measures to be 

implemented. 

Finally, I would like to comment on EPA's use of net rather than gross electricity generation as a 

basis for the emission rate goals in the proposal. Use of net generation penalizes utilities for 

the electricity that is used to power pollution control systems that are, in fact, mandated by 

other federal environmental regulations. In addition, EPA's proposed new source C02 

standards under section 111(b) are based on gross generation. For consistency, gross 

generation should also be used for the section lll(d) standards. 

In sum, Florida utilities have substantially decreased C02 emissions over the last decade. EPA's 

current proposals to mandate further reductions are unreasonable and unlawful. Thank you 

for your consideration of the FCG's comments. 

,,