Questions to discuss with EPA on September 19th conference call

1. How should states view the compliance approaches discussed in the TSDs versus the approach 

described in the Preamble, especially in cases where the former contrasts significantly with the latter. 

Specifically, Oregon would like to know how we should consider the compliance approaches for 

crediting energy efficiency in the State Plan Considerations TSD versus the approach described in the 

Preamble given the huge disparity in these different proposals. For example, the approach described on 

page 480 of the Preamble suggests states would credit only the emission reductions resulting from their 

energy efficiency that can be traced back to fossil EGUs within their state. For Oregon, this would credit 

only 10%-20% of the total emission reductions that result from our energy efficiency investments, 

depending upon the water year. In contrast, the “State that Implements the Measure Claims the 

Emission Effects” approach described on page 92 of the State Plans Considerations TSD would appear to 

credit Oregon with the full breadth of emission reductions associated with Oregon’s EE investments. So, 

given the enormous disparity between these two approaches, should we assume the Preamble 

approach is the presumed default method EPA is expecting states will use? Or, is this similar to the

different ways EPA is proposing to set Block 3, where we’ve heard from EPA that states should consider 

the “main” and “alternative” approaches to setting Block 3 equally? Joe Bryson.Robyn deYoung/Chris

1b. “a state could take into account in its plan only CO2 emission reductions occurring (or projected to 

occur) in the state that results from demand-side EE measures in the state.”

Oregon has interpreted the above proposal language to mean either:

1. Oregon may apply all of its energy efficiency MWh against all in-state 111(d) generators MWh 

output regardless of the percentage of in-state load served by these generators.

OR

2. Oregon may only apply EE savings that conceivably have an effect on dispatch of the in-state 

generators. In this case it helps to know that Oregon’s in-state 111(d) generators that serve instate load amounts to roughly 15% of total 111(d) generation (in-state and out-state). In this 

interpretation Oregon could only utilize roughly 15% of its EE to offset MWh generated at instate 111(d) generators. 

2. How does EPA envision states will be able to credit energy efficient in utility territories served almost 

exclusively by hydro? We’ve not found a discussion of this issue in the EPA’s documentation, but it is a 

significant issue for Oregon. Consumer owned utilities in our state are served almost exclusively by 

Bonneville Power Administration, which is almost entirely hydroelectricity. Has EPA considered or 

evaluated whether a regional marginal emission factor would be an appropriate mechanism for 

accounting for and crediting the emission reductions due to EE investments in situations like this where 

the demand savings does not immediately affect thermal EGUs but can be shown to do so directly given 

how electricity is dispatched in the region? DeYoung/Critchfield
3a. To the extent that states like Oregon include in their state plans emission reductions resulting from 

RE/EE investments made by a federal Power Authority (e.g. Bonneville Power Administration), what 

degree of authority or enforcement will the states need to have over that federal entity to satisfy EPA? 

States generally have limited authority over federal entities like BPA, yet our rate payers provide funding 

for the significant RE/EE investments BPA does in our states and thus the emission reductions produced 

by these investments will likely play an important role in our 111(d) compliance approach. How can 

states like Oregon provide EPA reasonable assurance that we will achieve the emission reductions 

identified in our plans from entities like BPA? Sherry/Jim K-C

3b. Similarly, how does EPA envision states in the Pacific Northwest will share compliance credit from 

the investments made by BPA? We anticipate a reasonable approach would be to apportion the credits 

based on each of the four states’ share of the federal hydro system, but haven’t seen anything in EPA’s 

documentation that discusses this. Sherry/Jim K-C

4. Does EPA envision a different crediting system for demand-response resources than for other 

demand-side resources? We can elaborate on this in our conversation if this is unclear. 

DeYoung/Bryson/Clouse

5. What is the “later date” after which incremental hydro generation must be constructed in order to be 

eligible to generate 111(d) compliance credit? Critchfield/Clouse

6. Are there any non-emitting generation technologies explicitly excluded from eligibility for generating 

111(d) compliance credit? Sherry