From: Wilson, Erika

Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:49 PM To: M. V. Ramana Cc: Bremer, Kristen; Hackel, Angela; Risley, David Subject: RE: Website Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Hello For the full EE calculations, please see the data file titled "GHG Abatement
- Scenario 1" ( http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014
-06/20140602tsd
-ghg
- abatement
- measures scenario1.xlsx ) of the GHG Abatement Measures TSD (available here: http://www2.epa.gov/carbon
pollution
- standards/clean
- power- plan
- proposed
- rule
-technical
- d ocuments ). Both the spreadsheet and TSD walk through the calculation. In your email, you noted that to get your numbers you multiplied the incremental savings (%) by the BAU sales demand. To replicate our calculation, you should multiply the incremental savings by the previous year's "sales after net EE." See p. 5
-41 of GHG Abatement TSD for more information. Thank you for your inquiry and your interest in the Clean Power Plan. Erika Wilson Clean Air Markets Division Office of Atmospheric Programs Offi ce of Air and Radiation U.S. EPA 202.343.9113 wilson.erika@epa.gov

________________________________________ From: Bremer, Kristen Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 9:36 AM To: M. V. Ramana Subject: RE: Website Comm ent: Carbon Pollution Standards Yes - I received your email and passed it along to our technical team on Wednesday. Please know that we value all questions and comments and will do our best to respond in a timely manner; however, given current workloads a nd schedules it may take longer to receive a response.

______________________________ Kristen Bremer Policy Analysis & Communications U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Email: bremer.kristen@epa.gov Phone: 919.541.9424 Cell: 919.321.7652----- Original Message
-----

From: M. V. Ramana [ mailto:ramana@Princeton.EDU ] Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2014 8:38 AM To: Bremer, Kristen Subject: Fwd: Website Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Dear Kristen, I was just checking if you did get this email of mine. Thank you, Ramana Begin forwarded message: From: "M.V. Ramana" < ramana@exchange. princeton.edu > Subject: Re: Website Comment: Carbon Pollution Standards Date: October 22, 2014 at 3:38:32 PM EDT To: "Bremer, Kristen" < Bremer.Kristen@epa.gov> Dear Kristen, I was trying to reproduce the example case for energy efficiency in the technical support document on GHG abatement measures (Docket ID No. EPA
- HQ- OAR - 2013 -0602). In the document, on page 5
-45, in table 5
- 20, the results for South Carolina are listed as: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 82,451 83,359 84,278 85,206 86,145 87,094 88,054 89,024 90,005 0.34% 0.54% 0.74% 0.94% 1.14% 1.34% 1.50% 1.50% 1.50% 274 440 608 777 945 1,113 1,250 1,249 1,249 82,177 82,660 83,008 83,229 83,333 83,329 83,258 83,264 83,346 0 14 38 70 110 160 219 285 350 274 700 1,270 1,977 2,812 3,765 4,796 5,760 6,659 0.33% 0.84% 1.51% 2.32% 3.26% 4.32% 5.45% 6.47% 7.40% However, if you carry out the operations that are mentioned in the TSD, the figures I get for the third and fourth rows are: 276 440 614 786 962 1142 1290 1302 1317 82,175 82,643 82,949 83,090 83,067 82,874 82,544 82,212 81,876 Some of the discrepancies are probably because of round
- off but the latter discrepancies are too large to explain this way. Further, the last three co lumns have the same savings percentage, but because the BAU generation is increasing, the annual incremental savings should also be increasing. Instead, these numbers are decreasing slightly. I am attaching my spread sheet in which I did these calculations and derived the above figures.I tried to look for the underlying calculations in the spreadsheets but I can't seem to find it. The numbers

themselves are in the abatement measures scenario1.xlsx file in the Sorted by State tab (row 845 and 846, colums J through R). But that doesn't calculate anything. Each cell points to a cell in Sorted_by_State, which then points to a table in the IntermediateData tab, which then leads me nowhere. So where are these figures actually calculated? I assume that somewhere in the spreadsheet 90,005 must be multiplied by 1.50 % to derive the 1,249 figure. And so on. But it is not apparent where that is. Please forward this question to the appropriate person. Thank you very much, Ramana On Oct 22, 2014, at 10:49 AM, Brem er, Kristen < Bremer.Kristen@epa.gov> wrote: You may contact me with any questions and I will forward them to the appropriate technical staff.

______________________________ Kristen Bremer Policy Analysis & Co mmunications U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards Email: bremer.kristen@epa.gov Phone: 919.541.9424 Cell: 919.321.7652

---- M. V. Ramana Nuclear Futures Laboratory & Program on Science and G lobal Security Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Princeton University 221 Nassau Street, Floor 2 Princeton NJ 08542 Email: ramana@princeton.edu Webpages: nuclearfutures.princeton.edu & www.princeton.edu/sgs