Answered Questions (3)

--------------------------

1. Lori Tussey: Are the presentation materials available?

* Lori Tussey: The presentation slides are available at: 

http://www2.epa.gov/cleanpowerplantoolbox/epa-webinar-series-proposed-clean-power-plan

2. Lori Tussey: I have lost sound completely. What should I do?

* Lori Tussey: You may have been disconnted from webinar. You will need to logout of Adobe Connect and 

log back in.

3. Lori Tussey: The audio is choppy. What should I do?

* Lori Tussey: Try the "Audio Setup Wizard" under "Meeting" in the upper left side of your screen.

Open Questions (38)

--------------------------

4. Donna Rogers: this is a test question

5. MontanaDEQ: Is it possible for an existing facility that is currently unaffected to become an affected 

facility after state plan approval (based on increased MWh)? How should states treat such potential future 

affected facilities in a state plan?

6. IN. Dept. of Env. Mgmt, Office or air quality: What happens if a State is unable to submit a plan within the 

2 year time frame or if a State declines to submit a plan?

7. Utah PSC: Other than a extended time to comply, what are the benefits of a regional , or multi-state, 

approach to compliance? Will a multi-state approach allow individual states to “average” emission rates 

thus possibly lowering what a state is required to achieve?

8. Charles Boritz: What measures must a state implement in order to take credit for at risk nuclear 

generation in the state plan?

9. Guest 6: How might measurements for compliance be different than the measurements used to set the 

individual state goals?

10. Cindy Hollenberg: If our state chooses a mass-based plan, it seems as though programs already in 

place will not "count" for reducing emissions. How do we account for a coal-fired retirement scheduled for 

2016? How do we account for energy efficiency programs already begun, but not come to full fruition? 

How do we account for RPS that are in place for 2020 and beyond?

11. Ana Ortega: Referring to slide 7, what is meant by "non-EGU affected entities" and please provide an 

example.

12. Guest 3: Can an existing EGU that is currently an "excluded" source become subject to the rule in the 

future? If so, how does a state plan incorporate the source?

13. Guest 3: Would a unit closure under a regional haze SIP be included in a state plan for this rule?

14. Steven Jenks: Will EPA be publishing a model state plan for an emission rate plan and mass-based 

plan? This will help States understand EPA's expectations for the plan and better digest the rule.

15. Brooke Bassell-Herman: Is there a three year rolling average for both the rate-based and mass-based 

methods, or is there a twelve month average for rate-based and a three year average for mass-based?

16. Charles Boritz: What are the implications of having an emission rate greater than the 2030 goal after 

implementing all of the "building blocks"?

17. Gene Therriault: Are all statewide increases in renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements 

elligible to be used in achieving the goal?

18. Guest 3: How are EE/RE programs that are implemented by another state agency included and deemed 

federally enforceable in a state plan?

19. Katie Southworth, Tennessee: Is the EPA considering development of a calculator for EE and RE 

program measures that states may elect to use? (Under the DOE Recovery Act programs, DOE allowed 

states to use a "recovery act benefits calculator" to report the impacts of state EE and RE programs. This 

calculator was very helpful for state-level EE and RE programs that do not have formal requirements at the 

state level regarding EE EM&V reporting protocols.

20. Mark Leath: If a state goes with a mass-based goal, and then electricity demand changes significantly in 

the future, would the state be allowed to adjust the mass-based goal upwards or downwards after it has 

already been approved

21. Gene Therriault: Will new, impoundment hydroelectric generation be elligible as a renwable source?
22. Guest 3: Will it be possible to see the presumptive mass based equivalent of our rate based goal PRIOR 

to when we need to submit comments?

23. Merrily Gere: If a state chooses mass-based compliance, will compliance in 2030 be the actual tons of 

emissions from the stack of each affected unit? Or would the conversion from a rate to a mass-based 

measure mean that it would be different? 

24. Kyrik Rombough: You state EPA has the authority to produce a FIP but do you have the authority to 

require energy effiiciency since it essentially regulates private individuals and small businesses, not a 

coal-fired power plant? Especially now since the U.S. Supreme Court didn't allow you to regulate beyond 

what Congress intended recently.

25. Mark Leath: One of the slides indicated that under a rate-based standard EGUs compliance averaging

period cannot be greater than 1 year. Under rate-based, EM&V must be done after the fact to determine 

how much credit an EE project would generate. With this in mind, how can an EGU demonstrate 

compliance each year if they have to wait for EM&V to see how much credit they get for their EE projects.?

26. Eddy Moore: Could a statewide appliance standard (i.e., only residential AC above 13 SEER) count as 

an EE measure, and what type of EM&V would be needed?

27. Charles Boritz: What other methods does EPA recommend other than the building blocks used to 

calculate the state goals?

28. Aditya Jayam Prabhakar (MISO): Some of the utilities in the Midwest have their generation solely in one 

state (with higher rate goals) with all of its customers residing in another with a stringent target (with much 

lower target) - can you please throw some light on how state(/s) should consider compliance in such a 

situation? 

29. Guest 6: Could a state modify its goal to include emissions associated with its consumption of energy

from a coal plant located in a different state and then track its reductions as part of its compliance as an 

alternative to collaborating with another state?

30. CPUC: If a state were to base its plan on a policy - a renewable portfolio standard, for example - and 

then the state wished to change that policy after EPA had approved of its plan, would the state have to seek 

EPA approval of that revised RPS policy, or would the state have to refile its plan to reflect the revised RPS?

31. Cindy Hollenberg: More clarification on mass-based plans. Reading the CO2 Projections TSD, 

creating the reference case scenario calls for including "firm builds and retirements" and other programs 

already in place, then applying the rate-based goal to the projections for that reference case scenario. 

This seems contradictory to your previous answer of determining "projections using the same assumptions 

as EPA used in calculating state goals." Or does this "complementarity" have a particular cut-off date?

32. Melanie Verzwyvelt: Are multi-state plans limited to the regions in which states were grouped in the 

proposal? 

33. Guest 3: Would an existing NG fired EGU that EPA "excluded" due to "low utilization" become an 

affected source if production increases? Would the goal be adjusted?

34. Merrily Gere: Do all the states in a multistate program have to participate in a multistate state plan filing, 

or could some file jointly and others file individually? For examples, do all the states in RGGI have to 

participate in a multistate state plan filing for it to be approvable?

35. NCTCOG: can the people answering the questions speak louder, please?

36. Guest 6: In a multistate implementation, could the states participating have an adjusted goal due to 

elimination of the import adjustment for EE?

37. Gene Therriault: How will a currently naptha-fired combined cycle EGU that is converted to natural gas 

impact the target rate? Will it's lower emission rate be able to be captured and applied to achieving the 

goal. The emmissions are currently excluded from the target calcultation.

38. Brooke Bassell-Herman: Is there a difference between BSER for a FIP and a SIP?

39. Guest 6: Could a state modify its goal to include emissions associated with it's share of consumption of 

energy from a coal plant located in a different state and then track its reductions as a part of its compliance 

as a form of collaborating with another state as long as the plant was removed as an obligation in the 

collaborating state?

40. Ohio EPA: How will the Q&A portion of these calls be provided to participants?

41. Lynn Deahl: The moderator's voice is overpowering the other speakers. Their voices are extremely low. 

please adjust