MEMORANDUM 

DATE: August 22, 2014 

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

FROM: Mary Johnson, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

SUBJECT: July 18, 2014, Meeting and Tribal Consultation with Crow Tribe of Indians, Ute Indian Tribe, 

and MHA Nation Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants 

SUMMARY 

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 18, 2014 to discuss the 

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

Country and Territories. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014, and 

published in the Federal Register on June 18, 2014. 

ATTENDEES 

Tribes 

 Bryce Hugs, Crow Tribe of Indians 

 Paul Hill, Crow Tribe of Indians 

 Brandon Goodluck, Crow Tribe of Indians 

 Eric Birdinground, Crow Tribe of Indians 

 Chris Reagen, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan - Ute Indian Tribe 

 Alvina Earnhart, Fredericks Peebles & Morgan - MHA Nation 

 Phillip Chimburas, Ute Indian Tribe 

 Gina LaRose, Ute Indian Tribe

EPA 

 Mike Koerber, Associate Director for Policy, OAR/OAQPS 

 Joan Card, Senior Policy Advisor, Region 8 

 Alfreda Mitre, Tribal Advisor, Region 8 

 Blake Huff, EPA Region 8 

 Dee Rothery, Region 8 

 Eric Wortman, EPA Region 8 

 Laura Farris, Region 8 (by phone) 

 Laura McKelvey, OAR/OAQPS (by videoconference) 

 Toni Colon, OAR/OAQPS (by videoconference) 

 Melanie King, OAR/OAQPS (by videoconference) 

 Mary Johnson, OAR/OAQPS (by videoconference) 

 Kevin Culligan, OAR/OAQPS (by phone) 

 Rick Vetter, OAR/OAQPS (by phone) 

ATTACHMENT 

 EPA presentation titled “Clean Power Plan Proposal and Supplemental Proposal”
Clean Power Plan Proposal and 

Supplemental Proposal

July 18, 2014
Overview

► EPA Clean Power Plan Proposal

► Why is EPA Proposing this Rulemaking?

► Affected EGUs Located in Indian Country

► Request for Comments in Proposal

► Next Steps

► Determination of the Best System of Emission Reduction

► Questions for Consideration

2
EPA Clean Power Plan Proposal

► Under Clean Air Act section 111(d), EPA issued the Clean Power Plan 

proposal on June 2; proposal was published in the Federal Register on 

June 18

► EPA proposed emission guidelines for states to follow in developing plans 

to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from existing fossil fuel-fired 

electric generating units (EGUs); specifically, we proposed:

► State-specific rate-based goals for carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from the 

power sector

► Guidelines for states to follow in developing plans to achieve the state-specific 

goals

► Affected EGUs located in Indian country would not be encompassed within 

a state’s CAA section 111(d) plan

► EPA did not propose goals for areas of Indian country with affected EGUs 

in the June 18 proposal

► EPA intends to publish a supplemental proposal to establish goals for the four 

affected plants identified in Indian country

► EPA intends to seek comment on how tribes with renewable energy (RE) and 

demand-side energy efficiency (EE) programs can be included in plans 3
Why is EPA Proposing this Rulemaking?

► CO2is a potent greenhouse gas (GHG) that contributes to climate change 

► CO2is the primary GHG pollutant, accounting for nearly 75% of global GHG 

emissions and 82% of GHG emissions across the country

► GHG pollution is causing potentially rapid, damaging and long-lasting changes in 

our climate that can have a range of severe negative effects on human health 

and the environment

► May 2014 report of the National Climate Assessment concluded that climate 

change impacts are already manifesting themselves and imposing losses and 

costs; report documents increases in extreme weather and climate events in 

recent decades, damage and disruption to infrastructure and agriculture, and 

projects continued increases in impacts across a wide range of communities, 

sectors, and ecosystems

► By 2030, the rule would achieve CO2 emission reductions from the power sector 

of approximately 30 percent from CO2 emission levels in 2005 and also reduce 

emissions of other air pollutants, including SO2, NOx and directly emitted PM2.5, 

from the electric power industry

► EPA projects that, in 2030, the significant reductions in the harmful carbon 

pollution and in other air pollution, to which this rule would lead, would result in 

net climate and health benefits of $48 billion to $82 billion

4
Affected EGUs Located in Indian Country

► EPA is aware of four potentially affected power plants located in Indian 

country

► Bonanza Power Plant on Ute tribal lands within Utah

► Four Corners Power Plant on Navajo tribal lands within New Mexico

► Navajo Generating Station on Navajo tribal lands within Arizona

► South Point Energy Center on Fort Mojave tribal lands within Arizona

► We are not aware of any potentially affected EGUs that are owned or 

operated by tribal entities

► We understand that Bonanza Power Plant is owned and operated by Deseret 

Power Electric Cooperative, which is owned by its six member systems: Bridger 

Valley Electric, Dixie Escalante, Flowell Electric, Garkane Energy, Moon Lake 

Electric, and Mt. Wheeler Power

5
Request for Comments in June 18 Proposal

► The 120-day comment period for the proposal began on June 18th and 

will end on October 16th

► EPA requests comment on:

► Whether a tribe wishing to develop and implement a CAA section 111(d) 

plan should have the option of including the EGUs located in its area of 

Indian country in a multi-jurisdictional plan with one or more states (i.e., 

treating the tribal lands as an additional state) 

► How a federal plan would work in a multi-jurisdictional approach

► EPA invites comment on how the Best System of Emission Reduction 

(BSER) should be applied to potentially affected EGUs in Indian country 

► EPA also invites comment on sources of data for setting RE and 

demand-side EE targets

► In setting goals specific to an area of Indian country, the EPA intends 

to base the goals on the collection of affected EGUs located within 

that area of Indian country, and we request comment on this 

approach

6
Next Steps 

► EPA intends to publish a supplemental proposal to establish CO2

emission performance goals covering affected power plants located in 

Indian country

► EPA intends to take final action on that proposal by June 2015

► If EPA determines that a plan is necessary or appropriate, we have the 

responsibility to establish CAA section 111(d) plans for areas of Indian 

country where affected sources are located unless a tribe on whose 

lands an affected source) is located seeks and obtains authority from 

EPA to establish a plan itself, pursuant to the Tribal Authority Rule 

► If a tribe does seek and obtain the necessary authority to establish a 

plan itself, it is EPA’s intention that the tribe would have flexibility to 

develop a plan tailored to its circumstances, in the same manner as a 

state, to meet the CO2 emission performance goals that EPA 

establishes

7
Determination of the Best System of Emission 

Reduction

► To set goals for each state, EPA first determined the Best System of 

Emission Reduction (BSER)

► Because the power sector is interconnected, EPA determined that a set of 

4 types of measures, or “building blocks,” together are the best system to 

reduce carbon pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants

► BSER is made up of 4 building blocks: 

(1) measures to make coal plants more efficient (e.g., heat rate improvements)

(2) increased use of high efficiency, natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) 

units (e.g., redispatch)

(3) generating electricity from low- or zero-emitting facilities

(4) demand-side EE

► After determining the BSER, EPA then set the goals based on application 

of the BSER to each state

► The goals EPA is setting for states do not lay out a set of required 

mechanisms a state must use to reduce carbon pollution; rather, EPA is 

setting a numeric goal that a state must meet through the measures they 

choose

8
Questions for Consideration

► Which building blocks should apply to goal-setting for areas of Indian 

country?

► Do you have data you would like us to consider when determining the BSER 

and the goals? 

► Can you provide information about:

► Is Moonlake Electric Association the local electric distribution company for the 

Uintah and Ouray reservation?

► What is the total annual electricity demand in recent years on the reservation?

► Has either the local electric distribution company or the tribe offered energy 

efficiency programs/services to electric consumers on the reservation?

► We recognize the tribe does not have to develop a plan to address the 

affected source in your area. We would like your thoughts on how best to 

address the source in your area.

► We are interested in offering opportunities for tribes to participate in the 

program (e.g., through EE programs or RE resources) to help attain CO2

goals even if an affected EGU is not located in the tribe’s area of Indian 

country.

► Do you agree? Do you have recommendations for how to do this?

► Are there other issues particular to your area we should be aware of?

9